Mahone

We don't. We don't have any. Not true. I attempted this when I first started in the role, but I spent so much of my time on the phone that I barely had time to do what I was actually employed to do - the 40+ calls per day from telemarketers was not an exaggeration, if anything the number is higher. I also don't take kindly to the devious tactics employed by so many of these sales teams in order to get through to me. If they lie, or purposely stretch the truth, I will never want to do business with them. As I stated before, if I want to buy something, I will do my own research and contact them. If they are good at what they do, I would hear about them through other connections/word of mouth. They do not need to contact me. Phoning is also very intrusive - it demands my attention right there and then, regardless of what else I might be doing. If they have to contact me, at least do it via a method that doesn't require my immediate attention.

Dear telemarketers/sales people Please don't be surprised when you cannot get put though to me, and you get repeatedly told that I'm in meetings/at lunch/dead on each of your daily calls to the office. Please understand that we regularly get in excess of 40 sales calls per day, and it's unreasonable for me to take them all, I have work to do. Please don't claim that it's a personal call in an attempt to trick the operator into putting the call through - we tend to get irate when this happens. Do not start a phone conversation with "don't worry, I'm not trying to sell anything" when it's a blatant lie. Please don't leave messages on my answer machine that are vague enough to sound like a legitimate issue that needs urgent attention, turning out to be selling a product that vaguely relates in some convoluted way to the issue you mentioned - you may trick me once, but you'll never have a chance to do it again. Please don't then turn up to our office unexpectedly/without appointment at possibly one of the busiest moments of the year and claim you were just "passing through the area" and thought you'd pop in for a friendly chat (although if you do, bring donuts). Please don't complain to the company when you are told to leave, because you didn't have permission/an appointment to be there. When I want your business, I'll contact you. /rant

Computing used to be my hobby until I started doing it for a living, and the work I did was for live corporate networks. At that point, the stress ruined it for me. I do still get excited over the arrival of new servers for the racks, but its short lived

I don't think I have an addiction, but I do spent so much of my life in front of a computer it's ridiculous. A typical day for me is to wake up and almost immediately remotely log onto work network to check all is running okay. Travel to work whilst checking and responding to email on my phone. Spent the next 9 hours in front of my workstation, before making the journey back home, also responding to emails and alerts on my phone. Once home, ill often log in remotely again for an hour or so, to finish up for the day. Then usually my family have one or two computer based issues for me to resolve, finishing up my evening. Rinse, and repeat. Typed on my phone. Please excuse errors.

I feel a little dirty now I machine wash my suit trousers regularly (even though they technically aren't machine washable), but have never cleaned any of my 4 suit jackets during their lifetime (2-3 years+), and I have to wear a suit 6 days a week.

As far as I have heard, the older brother was born in Chechnya. The younger brother was born in Dagestan, which is a neighbour of Chechnya. Both seemed to hold personal ties to Chechnya on social networking sites (members of various groups etc), so it's not quite the same as your analogy above.

Unfortunately a very similar fate to an English king: BBC News - Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's Incidentally, what are peeps?

More importantly, every claim on wikipedia needs to have a good source - exactly like when producing an assignment for university. If the source isn't listed, or it doesn't appear to be trust worthy, don't believe the claim until you find a source that you do trust. There is nothing wrong at all with using wikipedia as a starting point for research, just check the sources.

I can't speak for the other countries, but the USA has a small handful of bases in the UK primarily for it's own operations and interests (logistics and communications etc), not for the benefit of, or to sustain the British military. Again looking at the UK alone, the USA has 500% the population of the UK and 3900% the land/water mass. This partially explains why the USA has a military expenditure that is 1100% higher than the UK's. From my personal perspective, I do find it interesting that the UK is part of the top five world military spenders (consisting of the USA, China, Russia, UK and France) and yet out of the top 15 military spenders, we're by far the smallest in terms of land mass.

Presumably, you're now participating in the thread again? Anyway. Amusing, coming from the person that said this: Which is just as much of a "cutesy little snark attack" as my response. I was merely returning the favour. In your responses to me, you have claimed that I've made multiple statements. I'm still waiting for you to point out where I've made these statements.

I do find the statement about "shrieking" coming from Selek rather ironic. I don't know if it's just me, but I interprete repeated and continuous underlined and bolded text as a raise in volume of voice to emphasize the words e.g. shouting which is synonymous to "shrieking". Maybe it's just me.

And the rest of the world whilst they're at it.

There are several groups claiming responsibility for the attacks, but spamhaus believe it was a dutch internet service provider that they had recently put onto their block list, as they were hosting several prolific spammers. The network I run at work ended up on a spamhaus block list twice in the past few years due to a firewall vulnerability. I had hundreds of bounced e-mails on our e-mail servers within minutes of each block - less than 5% of our outgoing e-mail was reaching its intended recipients until we got ourselves removed from the list. Adding known spammers to the list really does help stem the flow of spam.

An interesting read, especially for those in the IT field. The DDoS That Almost Broke the Internet - CloudFlare blog

I hope I wasn't included in this statement as I'm not American and neither have I praised Chavez The reason I've played devils advocate in this thread is because it reminded me of a not too dissimilar thread on this forum about another not so popular world leader, at least from the perspective of the western world. Whilst most people were discussing what a dispicable human being this man was, a lone person claiming to live in the country he represented said something along the lines of much of the information here not being true, and that he wasn't the person many people thought he was. From memory, the response this person received was along the lines of what Selek said earlier, we know we are right, and you are wrong, plus lots of strong emotive words to back up this statement, but not as much in actual evidence. Yet as far as I'm aware this person was the only one on the forum that had lived under the rule of the leader in question, and they were dismissed so quickly. To my knowledge, everything we knew was essentially based on what the media in our respective countries had reported (not known for their complete accuracy), or from people who potentially had a vested interest in being negative about the country and it's leader. Of course this doesn't mean what they are saying is false, but I'm not so easily going to dismiss an opposing opinion because of what I think I already know. What I've been trying to do on this thead is establish how people know what they "know". This also helps me build on my lack of knowledge about him, and what sources are available to determine how much of this knowledge is verifiable.

I'm a little late replying to this, unfortunately I'm still very jet lagged after leaving Florida - the DST change really didn't help, either. Okay, so there is still plenty of media critical of chavez[1], social media is relatively unencumbered by government restrictions[2] and popular broadcaster Globovision is still actively broadcasting anti-chavez rhetoric across the airwaves, 11 years after they supported the opposition who attempted to overthrow him in an attempted coup, regardless of Chavez having the technical ability to stop all of this instantly if he wanted to. This still doesn't sound like your description of him: Here is an opposing point of view: A Few Facts about the Case of Judge Aï¬uni | venezuelanalysis.com I'm still waiting for evidence of the following: I'm guessing this is the opinion you claim is non-informed: I think this opinion is more than vague enough to be correct - heck, I could likely find dozens of people with a quick google search that are far more deserving of my dislike. Please clarify your issue here. Incorrect. My actual words were: You'll notice I didn't use the word "limited" anywhere. My point was that this board is not a good place to determine global opinion of Chavez, not just because of the small sample size here. Most of this boards population is American, and as Chavez was so anti-American, it follows that it encourages many Americans to have similar views of him by default. I stand by this. Please feel free to show where. Incorrect. I claimed that I didn't believe I knew enough about the man to have a valid opinion. No-where did I say that I didn't have any genuine knowledge of Chavez, his history, or tactics. These are your words, not mine. I'm sure you didn't, seeing as you clearly didn't read my post properly. I wouldn't know. I'm not really sure why you were responding to me, then? I don't see anywhere that I've attempted to "lionize" Chavez, neither have I had any desire to do so. Apologies if I offended you.

References please. My understanding is that almost none of the privately owned media in Venezuela supported Chavez during the 2002 coup, with only the state owned media channel supporting him, and even they stopped doing so half way through. Plus in this article from 2009, it suggests there is plenty of media critical of Chavez: What are you referring to here? Or, forgive my natural curiosity, I can discuss and find out more information to plug the gap in my knowledge. I find that remaining silent doesn't help in this regard, what about you? I did? You clearly see more than I do in my post. Please feel free to point out where my "digs" were, and what is factually incorrect in any of my post? Feel free to elaborate. Please provide evidence of your claim that my opinion is built up solely on "ill-formed opinions" and "prejudices" about "those ugly Americans" - who's words are these by the way? I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about quite frankly, and I really don't like the implication you appear to be making.

According to at least two sources, they weren't removed because they were in danger per se, but because the church was having a lot of difficultly in getting visas renewed - Chavez ultimately wanted them out of the country because he suspected some missionaries of being spies for the United States. LDS missionaries evacuate Venezuela | Deseret News It's no secret that Chavez disliked the USA for various reasons, which probably helped him get reelected - many people outside of the USA have a rather bitter taste in their mouth when the USA is mentioned, so someone in a position of power willing to speak out so publicly against them naturally gains followers. Of course that also has the side effect of sustaining a dislike of him from those within the US, which is demonstrable from the small group of Americans on this board. Those within Venezuela and living directly with all of the effects of his rule had a considerably more mixed point of view, proven by the election results. As for my opinion, I don't claim to know enough about the man or country to really hold a valid one. I do think that there are other leaders in this world that are far more worthy of my dislike, though.

What age would you suggest is appropriate for marriage?

Hi Truther Maybe. But there are thousands of wards across the globe, meaning thousands of janitors. In terms of numbers, there are around 30,000 wards. A janitor on average gets paid $9 an hour. Most wards probably require 4 hours cleaning per week. That's $1,080,000 per week, $56,160,000 per year - just for cleaning costs. I know I'd rather my tithing went somewhere more worthwhile. Incidentally, some wards do actually pay for a cleaner. She may or may not have discussed sex with her science teachers at school too. Context is needed. You aren't the only person to be upset by this, and understandably so. But try and understand the reasons behind this, it may help to quell your concerns somewhat. Did you ever ask them these questions about something they hold so dear? It's not exactly a secret... this information is publically available on the church website and elsewhere. I'm quite surprised this is the first you're hearing of it. You'll find out whatever information you ask for. Or you could research for yourself. Or ask your wife and daughter? Why do you feel the church has caused this? Why do you think your family might fear telling you? How do you think you'd have reacted had they told you? Right now you're coming across as fairly condescending to a group of people you know nothing about and have never met.

To my knowledge, very little American support was requested or given during the falklands war. Certain, no US soldiers were ever on the falklands islands during the war itself and I'm only aware of logistical support being offered. I'm not aware of how many people left the islands after we took over, however 70% of the islanders are of British descent which I think makes my argument valid - that's from an Argentinian perspective of course. The islanders, other than being mostly of British descent anyway, also gain far greater economical benefits to being under British rule, not to mention the Argentinian corruption scandals.

Indeed. It's a argument that's been going on for considerably longer however, she is just bringing it up again with a vested interest.

Using the scenario that Vort gave above, if Mexico invaded and successfully took forceful ownership of Florida, kicked whatever current residents they wanted to out of Florida and allowed thousands of their citizens to live for a couple of centuries there, would you also agree in this case that the current Mexican residents of Florida should be allowed to determine whether it remains in Mexican ownership, or the US regains what was legally/originally theirs?

For those that don't know, the falkland islands are a British overseas territory, actively run by the British government. However, Argentina also claim responsibility for the Islands, and have done primarily since 1945. They base their argument on the basis of our illegal occupation of the islands in 1833, and that they legally obtained the Islands from Spain when they gained independence from it in 1816. This subject has become contentious again in recent years, with Argentina once again trying to resume talks regarding the sovereignty of the falkland islands, and the UK essentially refusing to enter any more negotiations, especially since the Argentinian attempted invasion of the islands in 1982, which the British military successfully repelled after 2 months of battling. The falkland islanders are, by virtual of their residency on the falkland islands, British citizens. They themselves are determined that the islands should remain under British rule and retain their British citizenship. The Argentinians however, claim that the islanders themselves do not have a right to self determination and do not recognise the islanders as a valid entity in any debates regarding the the islands jurisdiction - only today in fact they re-emphasized that they wouldn't meet with representatives of the falkland islands. The Argentinians also don't recognise the name 'falkland islands', insisting on calling them the Malvinas. Signs such as these are common across Argentina: This translates to: "The Malvinas are Argentine". They have also been known to approach the waters surrounding the islands in warships, and radio messages to nearby fishing vessels that they are breaking Argentinian law - so far these messages have been ignored and Argentina have not tried to take the islands by force since they were forced to retreat in 1982. Something tells me that this issue is not going to go away by ignoring it like we have been in recent years. What do you think? Should the British give the islands back to their "rightful" owners?

^^ This doesn't get infected with viruses often either. Viruses are for real computers only. I've seen the e-crime malware and it's variants multiple times. It's not a particularly advanced piece of malware, almost anyone can exploit the java plugin nowadays and they usually exploit already known vulnerabilities - if you have it, unless you really need it I recommend you disable it, it's so full of holes that I doubt it'll ever be reasonably secured. No, a real piece of malware is flame and it's predecessor stuxnet. Suspected to have been created by Israel in conjunction with the USA to target Iran, it's considered to be the most complex malware ever found in the wild and the first real instance of cyber warfare. The most interesting part of it is just how many exploits (including zero day exploits) of independent pieces of software/firmware that it makes use of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_(malware)