Does grinding help the extraction? I just steep the threads for ten minutes in freshly-boiled water, then strain them (my mother was not a great cook, and I don't think she ever used saffron).
Saffron's expensive by weight; but not per recipe. A teaspoon of the stuff could float away on the breeze, but few recipes call for as much as a teaspoon. A £5.00 box of saffron lasts me about 3 months, and I use the stuff weekly.
My reaction to the article was that they're using a lot of words to explain this change. That suggested to me that maybe they aren't being completely candid.
I've never used Signal, because (a) I don't want to rely on a smartphone, and (b) I don't want to use my phone-number as my ID, because it's traceable. I can't work out from the TFA verbiage whether this change addresses my concerns or not. That in itself is concerning, to me.
On the NANAE newsgroup, law firms would often pop up threatening legal action against blocklist maintainers or mailadmins; the standard response was "Where is your writ?".
That's dangerous advice, if you have anything to lose, and the C&D isn't obviously complete nonsense. Your adversary's lawyer may have causes of action that he chooses not to disclose just now.
I used to work for an Indymedia collective; I'd say we received half a dozen C&Ds.
[Indymedia was an open news collective, with a strong anarchist-socialist leaning]
Our "collective" had no formal membership, and no assets. We were all just volunteers who valued the platform and did some work to help out. These emails were always addressed to "To Whom It May Concern". Pseudonymity was the norm in Indymedia, and I was completely ignorant about the IRL identity of most colleagues that preferred to be pseudonymous.
They'd usually be complaining about Indymedia reports of the activities of some small businessman, often a builder. It would often be part of a campaign, i.e. there would be more than one article, by different people. So we'd collate the articles, and do web-searches; if the complaint appeared to refer to something potentially libellous; or involved some crime like inciting violence; or violated our posting T&C, like trolling, conspiraloon, or agent-provocateur, then we'd hide the article or comment; otherwise the site would have been deluged in spam. Hidden articles and comments didn't appear in lists. We had no one-button method for removing an article completely, we had to blank the article in the database. We even published a link to a page where you could view all articles and comments; none of these C&Ds ever referred to a hidden article.
We never replied to any of these C&Ds. We (or I) never hid an article or comment as the result of reading a C&D; I never thought the C&D had any merit. We took the "Ignore" route, and never suffered any adverse consequences; not even follow-ups.
So I don't share the author's opinion that you should never adopt the Ignore route. Perhaps we got lucky, but I'd have taken these messages more seriously if they had named me.
When I was at school (a long time ago), they tried to explain computers to us by making an adder using beads and matchboxes. We didn't have classroom computers back then. I'd like to know how that worked.
I've always wanted to build a digital clock entirely running on fluids. It would use fluid gates, and present a digital display by pushing blobs of coloured immiscible liquids back and forth through glass tubes (perhaps arranged as a seven-segment display). The counter itself would be made using fluid gates (which I don't know how to make). It would be slow; but for a wallclock with minute precision, you hardly need nanosecond gates.
> the people don't have a say in their current government
Sure, and I get a say in my government. Every five years. We've had three prime ministers since the last time I was allowed to vote in national elections, including two certifiable crazies.
Some people seem to think that a government isn't legitimate unless it's appointed the way we appoint our government (FSVO "we"). I happen to take the view that an election isn't legitimate, however well it's run, if it's conducted while under military siege.
> I understand that Europe is much more balanced than Australia on this one.
I'm in the UK. It depends what you mean by "balanced". What I'm seeing on TV news has been changing. At first, they didn't try to link Hamas to terrorism. They've been berated by Israelis for that; so now every time they mention Hamas, they add a clause like "Hamas, an organisation that is proscribed in the UK and many other countries for terrorism".
Apart from that, the "balance" I'm seeing is a kind of passive-aggressive pseudo-balance. For example, they do report statements from Israeli leaders calling for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza; in some cases, favourably (as if moving two million people from Gaza into refugee camps in the Sinai desert is a sensible compromise). So, they express hope that Egypt will open the border at Rafah, which is exactly what these Israeli extremists want.
There's no serious questioning or investigation of the claims from the IDF or Israeli government. You just see lots of wailing grandmas (in Israel and in Gaza), which seems to be the MSM's standard way of reporting conflicts these days. So it's war-porn.
He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. And he's not a member of Hamas; so I don't see how you figure that he broke rule #1.
But the Home Secretary is now demanding that the police arrest and charge anyone carrying a Palestinian flag (note: not just a Hamas flag). In that context, the letter of the law seems a bit irrelevant.
Hamas was elected by the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, in Palestine-wide elections. Fatah immediately launched a coup attempt. That failed in Gaza, but succeeded in the West Bank. It's Fatah (Israel's preferred "negotiating" partner) that won't allow elections; Hamas could only hold an election in Gaza, not in the West Bank. Hamas has no desire to validate the claim tht Gaza and the West Bank are distinct territories, which is the effect that holding an election in Gaza only would have.
Gaza isn't occupied, it's besieged. Has been for about 15 years; before that it was occupied (and settled). Before that it was under Egyptian administration, and before that it was under UN administration.
> faceless people at the British Establishment Country Club
That's roughly it.
The British Establishment (leaders of the main parties, intelligence officials, senior judges, senior police) wanted to make an example of him, because of his persistent exposure of their arbitary persecution of Assange. He was charged with contempt of court, for "jigsaw identification" of a witness in another case, that of Alex Salmond. That charge was prosecuted before a single judge, who was very much a member of "The Establishment", and he got 6 months in the slammer.
It's still not clear which remarks he made on his blog that contributed to jigsaw identification. Maybe it was a commenter on his blog that made the troublesome remark. But apparently other, more-mainstream journalists had been much more explicit, and most of the Scottish political class knew who the witness was from those sources, not from Craig's blog.
Basically, he was fitted-up for loudly espousing Scottish independence.
> you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment
Yeah, but that involves a charge, and you get a lawyer.
I would have refused to answer anything without first consulting a lawyer; I won't take legal advice from the investigating policeman. "You say I have to answer? Fine, I'll answer if my lawyer confirms that." What can go wrong? The worst that can happen is that they charge you (with something?) for refusing to answer. Voila: legal advice.
I guess Craig's devices didn't have much of interest on them; he travels a lot, and has been mauled by the law more than once. So he can give up the passwords with confidence. And presumably they already knew what meetings he'd attended, with whom.
Thanks! That's a pretty low threshold to surmount. @lucgagan: you've done the time. Try editing a few articles - copyediting is enough. Then delete your draft, and create a new mainspace article.
I don't create articles these days; it's too much like hard work.
You used to be able to create an article by making a redlink wikilink somewhere, and then clicking it - that would take you to an editor. The new article would appear in mainspace. Do you have to "volunteer" to appear in mainspace? Are all new articles deemed to be "draft", and subject to review nowadays? Or are some users allowed to create new articles in mainspace, and others not? If so, what are the criteria?
It looks fine to me; some of the references look a bit obscure, but I wouldn't call them "unreliable". I'd say "Curb Safe Charmer" has been harsh; there are many, many articles that are supported by worse citations, and are less notable, but exist in mainspace.
[Edit] I wonder if Curb Safe Charmer automated his review using something like this?
I have one AppImage installed on one system (of four, at the moment). Zero flatpaks and snaps. That one AppImage appears to be available only as a Windows install or an AppImage. I dread any future where everything is an AppImage (or whatever).
Why not just ship everything with a complete OS? Hell, let's go the whole hog; hardware is also a dependency, it's not just libraries. So let's ship every app as a hardware appliance.