Wibble4321

Registered bored user

wibble4321 wrote:
skeeter01 Tipton brothers Lotto Scandal.  It seems they have their own wikipedia entry!
wibble4321 wrote:
Personally, I'm lovin it.  It's a tad slow, and character development is also slow - but given they are trying to introduce a whole slew of people into what everyone _expects_ to feel familiar that is hardly surprising.

There is some good talent, some of the twists are a little signposted but other than that I'm good with it.  Frankly though, I very much enjoy the rebooted film franchise and can appreciate good sci fi for what it is.  I'm not so immersed into Star Trek that I cannot forgive deviations from established history.  I'm enjoying it as a show for what it is.

On a related note, because it was mentioned, I'm very much enjoying Orville.  Of course  there are niggles and frankly if Seth ask Alara to open this jar of pickles one more time I might have to do something unpleasant...
wibble4321 wrote:
layla_wilson Just because the words have the same root doesn't mean they are interchangeable.  Causing terror does not make one a terrorist.
wibble4321 wrote:
layla_wilson Creating terror is not the only requisite to being a terrorist or performing an act of terrorism.  If that were the case then spiders and Stephen King would be terrorists.  Language is specific and for good reason.  Misappropriation of language leads to misunderstandings and, in the case of Nevada apparently, poorly thought out and worded legal definitions.
wibble4321 wrote:
layla_wilson The state of Nevada can define it how it likes.  Personally I think that is a poor definition as terrorism has to be executed with the intention of change.  With the intention of change (political, religious or social) using violence, force or the threat of force to compel change against the policies of the incumbent.  Otherwise it is an act of wanton violence - albeit a terrible one on a huge scale.

Given the fact that the guy was prepared enough to scout, book two hotel rooms, install cameras to monitor police approaches it seems unlikely that he forgot or neglected to state what his aims were if he had any.
wibble4321 wrote:
He cannot be a terrorist because terrorists are political.  "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."  Unless this is proven to be a politically motivated attack, he's just a nut-job.
wibble4321 wrote:
profworm Have you read the first hand accounts of what happened? The guys on the stage seemed to have at least as high an opinion of Prince as Prince did.  It was an awesome piece of guitaring.
wibble4321 wrote:
I find it difficult to follow without the presence of small mammals, water based mishap or Eastern European vehicles hitting one another like dodgems.  In all seriousness though I didn't expect that from Jim.  A very unexpected side.
wibble4321 wrote:
Let me paint you a picture of conference call hell.  We (the put upon protagonists) happen to be based in Asia.  We work for an American company.  Our conference calls have to happen usually at 10 or 11pm because London also have to join in.  New York of course are just arriving in the office for the main part.  Imagine the level of frustration as you sit there, at 10 or 11 at night waiting while the US end of the call talks about their train journeys into the office, their coffee orders, the inevitable rustling as people unwrap their breakfast bagels and muffins, discussing what happened on last night's TV etc.  That, I don't mind saying, used to royally piss me off?
wibble4321 wrote:
Finally - I got one!
wibble4321 wrote:
More humane to drop them into a bucket of alcohol / meths I would think.  They'd die much faster and be anesthetized.  then again if I lived on a farm I'd probably more pragmatic about rodent suffering.  Then again
wibble4321 wrote:
Wow, never seen or heard of it.  Looks like a moderately interesting film, might give it a shot.
wibble4321 wrote:
I've no idea who that judge is, but on the couple of times I've seen him, I like him.
wibble4321 wrote:
There are things that Range Rovers are very very good at.  There are also things that Range Rovers are not at all good at.  It is important to understand which is which at any given point in time.
wibble4321 wrote:
fancylad Sorry, never seen it.  Never been remotely interested to either.
wibble4321 wrote:
Nope, not a clue.  I can guarantee this is not a classic that everyone's seen.  Now that I _think_ I know what it is (after extensive research) I can assure you that I've never seen it.  It was certainly never big in the UK.
wibble4321 wrote:
Fojos Yes it has, but I don't think most black South Africans would campaign for a resumption of apartheid.  That the new government has proven itself to be generally poor is not a reason to carry on with the old.
wibble4321 wrote:
dkm458 The question is, was he a terrorist because he was a black african as opposed to - say - George Washington who was overthrowing an oppressive and un-representing regime?  When does violence become necessary in order to force change and strive for equality where none existed?  That's an open question by the way, and I'm sure Ghandi had a few things to say about non-violent opposition.
wibble4321 wrote:
whosaidwhat Exactly, he isn't playing Jack Sparrow, he's playing Johnny Depp unleashed.
wibble4321 wrote:
This seems accessible outside the US
wibble4321 wrote:
rumham Red Dwarf.  Of course there is Futurama that was excellent too.  
wibble4321 wrote:
squrlz4ever 191 countries signed up to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970 - including North Korea.  It stated that countries that already had 'the bomb' (United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) would agree to try and reduce to zero inventories of nuclear weapons and in return everyone else would not attempt to build or develop any of their own.  North Korea has since withdrawn from the treaty and publicly pursued  their own nuclear weapons development program.
wibble4321 wrote:
squrlz4ever There is the problem in a nutshell (don't eat it, it is just a metaphor).  Getting consensus.  One wildcard I didn't mention of course was China.

China historically has been the strongest ally and supporter of NK.  It supplies most of their imports and military designs.  There is a sense that China may be pulling back from this support in the face of the growing inconvenience of being perceived to support such a regime while they themselves are trying to present on the world stage as both an economic and military superpower.

If China does pull the plug on NK in a significant way I'm not sure what will happen.

I think the one thing everyone agrees on is that the Korean peninsula WILL pop at some point.  The only question is who starts it and how big does it get.  Given the players involved and their economies, SK, Japan, the US and China it will probably be messy.
wibble4321 wrote:
squrlz4ever The problem with NK is the fragility of the leadership.  As you say, the country (or rather the citizens) endures incredible hardships every day and a large percentage of the population is at or below starvation levels.

Kim Jong-un isn't an idiot, the military get fed and paid first but eventually the people might start to stir.  They don't currently because they know no better.  They really are truly cut-off from the rest of the world and don't understand how bad they have it.  They are persuaded that they are all but at war with the rest of the world, the the US has annexed South Korea - dividing them from their brothers and sisters and only the divine strength and wisdom of the 'Kims' coupled with their tactical brilliance has held the foreign invaders at bay supported by the strong, loyal and brave NK military.  Their world viewpoint is very very different from ours and the propaganda is strong, as are the punishments for questioning the official line.

The risk of course is revolution.  All bets are off.  Nukes are politically controlled by his most loyal troops and I would not be surprised to see him run a 'false flag' attack inside his own borders to create a unifying event to suppress dissention and cause war before he would consider losing power.  The promise of reunifying North and South Korea and overthrowing the US 'invaders' would be a strong rallying call in the event of political emergency.
wibble4321 wrote:
thezigrat Generally speaking you put them in an acorn and wait for it to grow of course.