StringJunky

Someone is being very disingenuous in this rising conflict, it is not hystera. Putin is trying very hard to reverse the blame. He's probably doing that to justify any future Russian actions to his domestic audience, who are blinkered news-wise by government design.

The leaders are sparring on the advice of their respective military experts, we can't expect our news or their words to reflect their true positions... BS, omission and bluff is necessarily very much on the menu atm, methinks. oooh! That's a very hawkish comment from you. Has the dove flown? I agree, generally, you can't keep walking backwards to keep the peace.

I thought iNow said something directly it about as a riposte to a comment of mine, but I seem to be mistaken. It was earlier in the day. Looking back now, it might have been this comment from Phi, bolded: Anyway, thanks for all your views. This was just a learning exercise and I'm not really defending a view. The US system is what is, and I agree, reservations aside, that, in practice, a a black, female SC judge will improve representation of the wider US population.

It's wrong, whichever side it comes from. The selection of Kavanaugh was a stinker, as we all know. I'm becoming less enamoured of the Dems, and they seem to play by the same playbook as the GOP. Same old shit, different actors in each successive administration. I agree, it['s a sad state of affairs, the US judicial selection system being so political.

It's not a 'GOP concern' per se, Lindsay Graham, for instance doesn't mind, which surprised me. The GOP don't appear to be monolithic on this. My possible concern, and Sen. Collins, is more for the principle of selection. She's not a closed-minded Republican. I'm an outsider looking in, maybe that makes a difference. MigL is an outsider also and seems to see the same angle. It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will." Is that a good way to think in the long term, and keep the principled upper hand against the other side? If anything, it demeans the ability of the affirmatively chosen candidate because the goalposts were moved in their favour for them to get the job.

@iNowOK. Thanks for your observation. It seems she is up next for election again in 2027. Is that not a very long way away, such that she would be concerned much about that at this point in her tenure? Your point would have had considerable weight had she been up in the near future, I think.

I expected that from you, iNow, I know you are an ideologist. Why is Susan Collins unhappy?

Is it a wise move for Biden to limit the field of potential candidates to black women just because there hasn't been one? Should not the best qualified person be chosen to such an important position, irrespective of gender and ethnicity? If that turns out, after collective deliberation, to be a black woman, then all well and good, but is it a sound way to do this? Is affirmative action not politicizing the process and discriminating against an equally qualified pool of candidates that don't fit that category? Occasional Republican ally of Democratic legislation seems to think so:

I will agree that one should attack the argument and not the poster.

Right, cheers.

It's called 'pragmatism' and having an awareness of our species, and others, fragility in having all our eggs in one basket, Earth. You may feel a sense of permanence in Earth being, even naturally, hospitable for all time without human effects, but that is a bit naive. As for unrealistic, I sense a bit of conservative Ludditism in your approach. There was a time that learned people thought that if you went over 20mph, you wouldn't be able to breathe.

If one caught cancer induced by an aflatoxin, could someones malignancy be directly traced back to it as cause, or has it just been isolated in research experiments as a potential cause? As an example, Koposi's sarcoma is directly attributed to HIV and HHV-8 infection, aren't they?

It seems cooked rice left for too long is an ideal environment for any Bacillus cereus spores that are floating around to germinate into bacteria, and poison you - from the NHS site.

Perhaps it is your choice of news sources that is the problem.

I think ANPR cameras do a better job of speedsters because they calculate average speed between two distant cameras, rather than just the one camera capturing a single speed data point over a short distance. These can be easily circumvented by people familiar with speed camera locations by slowing down just in time. That's more a recipe for accidents and reckless driving because it puts people in two modes: fast and slow. ANPR cameras probably force more people to drive in a more steady fashion because the mental mathematics of getting around them is too difficult to work out in real-time.

I live in a county of about 1m people with 1073 serving officers (2020). That's the lowest ratio in the country. There seem to be cc cameras on all traffic light systems that I've seen in the city. Camera surveillance is very big in the UK, I think. We have about 9000 ANPR and 7000 speed cameras on the roads in the UK (4th highest globally). It might be worth splitting off, Phi. I think the general feeling here, is that they are really more a revenue stream due to there locations, and that's why there are so many. The latter is anecdotal on my part from things I've read in the local and national news. In just London alone there are 500,000 government-run cctv cameras. There's a few more statistics in that quote link. There appears to be a camera, of all types, for every 13 people. Hope that gives you a general idea. I find it interesting how many people are caught commiting crimes by their own camera systems, of whatever sort, and people are buying them like they are going out of fashion; Alexas, car cameras, doorbell cameras, helmet cameras, baby cameras, etc. Mobile phones are also potentially perfect remote government spies, Centralize all that data and Big Brother will truly be here. China is already implementing such an authoritarian nightmare. If you challenge the intrusion, that old chestnut "What have you got to hide?" will be thrown at you. The trail of data you leave behind you now, as you live your life, is endless. Privacy is pretty much a myth now. It's a wide subject of conversation, and I'm definitely off the focus of this thread. We will all become immortal by virtue of our data profile. Happy days.

People fight to preserve what they believe in. My grandfather, and likely many other war veterans would double facepalm your comment. Putin would welcome someone like you... makes his brand of autocratic rule easier to accomplish.

A funny thought: if we go to war with Russia, watch the toilet rolls fly off the shelves first before anything else.

They're the opportunists, trying to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

You probably didn't take the cursor out of the first quote box, due to probably editing it, on to a new line outside it before adding another quote, lLike this:

Here's a BBC explanation on what initiated the change: If drivers are getting away with it, that might be down to the ever diminishing presence of the police on the roads.

A crow's got to eat... They do pick up the dead stuff as well and keep our roads and paths clean of dead animals.

I think 'democracy' is on their "inappropriate thoughts" list as well. The takedown of the Tiannamen protest monuments are presently being removed in Hong Kong.

Yes, the very wealthy could be exempted by their 'tax-efficient' accountants.

My neighbour had the same attitude, that each group was somehow monolithic and distinct. We can only ssume that such persons have roots growing out of their arse and into their seats, with everyone outside their vehicle an infernal obstruction.