badgerx16

The monarchy is not necessary for tourism in this country, it is the history, the museums, the cathedrals, the landscape, etc, that bring in the dollars, roubles, euros, ........ Where are the monarchies in France, Italy, the USA, China, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav republics, Greece, etc ? All top tourist destinations.

This is the point in 1989 when Maggie T pulled the wool over our eyes, her speech to the United Nations General Assembly : http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=107817 "What we are now doing to the world, by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. " "We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere. At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[fo 3] The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones. " "Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: • The land they cultivate ever more intensively; • The forests they cut down and burn; • The mountain sides they lay bare; • The fossil fuels they burn; • The rivers and the seas they pollute. The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world's climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all. " "The negotiation of some of these protocols will undoubtedly be difficult. And no issue will be more contentious than the need to control emissions of carbon dioxide, the major contributor—apart from water vapour—to the greenhouse effect." Alternatively, a right-wing political giant, with a relevant scientific qualification, understood and interpreted the facts of the research, and realised the severity of the problem, and the challenges that had to be met.

If you don't want to be sent to hot & dusty foreign parts to be blown up by the locals that never invited you, don't take the Queen's shilling. He knew what he was in for when he joined up, he knew the consequences of what he was doing when he 'chose' not to return. Once you put your name at the bottom of their form, you become the Government's pawn. ( No disrespect to TDD and the others on here in the forces, you are all doing a job most of us would run a million miles to avoid ). If the armed forces get to pick and choose what they want to do, you may as well disband the lot.

More bland pointless 'promises' that will not be delivered and spending plans that are completely unfeasible, interspersed with another dose of 'command and control' central Government dictat and bluster for already over-burdened sectors such as education. Nothing more than electioneering for a national poll they are destined to lose. Can somebody please find a Labour party for me to vote for ? As for the Queen's Speech, the Monarchy is another anachronism whose time has long passed.

Dune - aptly named; keep your head buried in the sand. Baaaaaaaaa!

Let us see what David Cameron has to say ; http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/news/cameron_climate_interview.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-we-need-a-greater-sense-of-urgency-on-climate-change-474841.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4272196/Environmental-revolution-promised-by-David-Cameron.html http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/greenfutures/articles/602739 Veeery left wing agenda Also, Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain supports the theory of MMCC and espouses controls on carbon emissions; http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/283389 Another commie ?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011639.shtml (" Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.") http://www.enersolcorp.com/news/2007/Solar_report.htm ("Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.".) http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/ ("Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming") :smt008

It was supposed to be a drop kick, but he didn't let it bounce, so technically it was a punt and therefore he failed.

If you want to present a graph, why not extend it back 30,000 years ? At that point, in the middle of the last Ice Age, Britain was under 1Km of ice, we have sure seen a lot of warming since then. I would have thought that's exactly the kind of statistical information you thrive on. Then again, why not go back to the Cretaceous Period, when there were no ice caps at all, and the sea level was far higher than it is now. ( You would have been happy back then, with all the other dinosaurs ). None of your graphs disprove MMCC, they simply show there is no simple answer.

Why do you never actually read anything that is posted by people who accept MMCC ? NOBODY, I'll repeat that as you seem to be a bit hard of thinking, NOBODY, denies that climate change is a natural geophysical phenomenon, OK - point agreed, don't have a problem with that ! However those who accept the science, and don't immediately and blindly dismiss anything from the Government as another 'stealth tax', have concerns that human activity is exacerbating the problem - not just by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but by deforestation and pollution of the seas. You see, in any totally natural event, the balance of nature will be maintained, but we are so obsessed with material wealth and 'my cars bigger than yours' that we are tipping the balance. And whilst it may only be a little bit of the overall total that we contribute directly, the models show that it only needs a very small amount over and above what can naturally be managed, to nudge things beyond the tipping point. In all the historical cycles prior to the mid 1800's, mankind's contribution was effectively zero, and, of course, the rainforests were intact, and the plankton blooms were perfectly happy in their environment. Oh, and the BBC article does nothing other than to say there are two sides to the argument. Hardly an earth shattering conclusion !

Seconded !

We are apparently using the resticted groups approach, applying policies to PC based groups in the AD, and adding 'local administrator' access for privileged user groups to the computer groups as appropriate.

I'm glad you put 'science' in quotes

Micro$haft Windoze is never straight forward. As Shane_SFC says, Privilege Manager is a good way to control admin rights, it is one of the things I know we are currently looking into - I will ask a couple of my techies for their advice about other options.

I think it shows how important a FIT Ricky Lambert is, as the cover isn't good enough to play in place of a half-fit one. And I think the gamble on Ricky is probably what cost us, as we didn't have any spark up front, making their CBs look better than they are, plus a normally questionable keeper decides he needs to impress his new boss.

I'm POSITIVE that's our worst home display this season

Well, bottom 4 for at least another week :confused:

Is that now 3 at the back ?

We are building our whole season on a combination of pace and experience - trouble is it looks like it's the the pace of Jaidi and the experience of Trotman.

"Secured against future television revenues" - smoke and mirrors then ?

That'll do for starters, now a b0ll0king at half time and all over them like a rash for 45 minutes. COME ON!!!!!

So do Harding, and Morgan, and...

We are poo this evening :mad:

Got away with that penalty claim...

1) How many client PCs, and what O/S ? 2) Are any of these articles of use ?..... http://searchwindowsserver.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid68_gci1065698,00.html http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Using-Restricted-Groups.html http://community.scriptingprovip.com/forums/146958/ShowThread.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/heyscriptingguy/archive/2004/10/08/how-can-i-add-a-domain-user-to-a-local-administrators-group.aspx