http://www.surlatable.com/gs/authentic-british-imperial-pint-glasses-set-6-20-oz-family-cocktail-beer-glassware-bar-9.shtml

There... how much nicer is that.

http://www.thepubshoppe.com/pintglasses.html

That might have the old crown... but its hard to say

@#10 I am completely with you. As a Brit-phile from the states I love the Imperial Pint and the crown on the glass. There is certainly something a little more regal in the British Crown than French conformity stamped on the side of my beer.

PS: Hi Rewt... I hope I didn't take your name

It seems really similar to Googlism

http://googlism.com

Also... by far my favorite Barack Obama related website:

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

My favorite comparison is this one:
http://www.kaldu.org/images/transfiguration-of-Jesus.png

vs.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2146/2279718315_e7e9efe7e3.jpg?v=0

You guys are thinking about this ALL WRONG. The TSA is actually insanely clever. The massive amount of annoyance in this kids life is going to cause him to go John Rambo on everyone, find the actual terroristical Sam Adams and bring him to swift justice.

"It represents infinite possibility; it represents hope; it represents potential..."

No it doesn't. Its a box of known dimesion, weight, and cost. It has no obvious emissions and has remained at least relatively inert ever since he bought it. It actually represents a very finite set of possibilities. This doesn't even function as a Schroedinger type box because it is mere cardboard and can easily be seen inside of with the right equipment.

Startlingly Abrams actually makes a somewhat insulting metaphor with the box seeing as it is actually a startlingly UN-mysterious object. What is more interesting is his love of "the-way-things-work" which is anti-mystery and very scientific. What it really seems is that he is participating in a kind of personal asceticism. He could easily find out what is in the box but the self denial is what he is really interested in. The specific denial of knowledge ("mystery") is what he likes himself, and what he likes inflicting on us. In the creative world of infinite possibilities the question becomes what should be revealed not what can be revealed.

The basic premise is that suspense makes good storytelling... bravo.

"Neutralizing the Insurgents. Whether
the AC–130 finds insurgents on its optimized
flight plan or rushes to the aid of a friendly
ground force, it has the ability to attack the
insurgents nearly instantaneously when
cleared by the JTAC and his ground force
commander. It can do this because of its
precise fire, low-yield munitions and ability
to communicate and confer simultaneously
with every level of theater Army, Air Force,
Marine, and SOF command and control.
While immediate fire on the insurgents
is often preferred, certain situations will
require further analysis and preparation.
The AC–130, with 4 hours of loiter time
and the ability to refuel in air, can wait for
a ground or heliborne quick-reaction force
to be mustered to assist with the situation.
These forces should be ready to move immediately,
knowing the well-practiced ability of
the AC–130 to vector small ground units to
the target area quickly and safely. Once on
scene, the quick-reaction force uses the situational
awareness and precise firepower of
the gunship to help assess the situation and
neutralize the enemy, if required."

Its not to say that we shouldn't be ready for massive aerial battles... its possible that they could happen. But the reality is that these type of aircraft are not in high demand in current conflicts. Its a very interesting hardware problem from the point of view of the military (US and otherwise). We are literally in need of propeller driven aircraft... welcome to the 21st century? right?!

IANAE in this field but I would direct people to the ever informative War Is Boring blog, which does a great job of keeping tabs on changes in military hardware.

The basic gist of things as I understand it is that projects like the Joint Strike Fighter and similar fast attack, air to air combat aircraft are largely irrelevant in modern conflict. And that is a very good thing for the average person. The need for aircraft like the F22 or Su-30MKI means that the military is expecting large scale warfare against militarily advanced nations. We focused on fighter technology a great deal when we thought that we would be having WWIII with the USSR.

However, in current conflicts the real need for airpower is defined by precise and long loitering aircraft. Blowing up a building with a 500lb bomb from an aircraft barreling through the air at super speed because it contains 6 terrorists that might be planting IEDs on busy roads is not exactly a "hearts and minds" kind of strike. It increases the likelihood that innocent civilians will receive collateral damage.

Something like a gunship can loiter over an area known to be dangerous and talk directly to forces on the ground, providing them with better perspective. Then it can engage enemies with pinpoint accuracy using much smaller armaments than a 500lb bomb.

For those that are curious:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i45/19.pdf
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/air-force-eyes-.html

@CANK

I will admit that a fair amount of people in the US and UK are still very touchy about religion. But there is still no equating your professor example and this example of the teacher in Sudan.

They are in no way the same. In the example you posted. A professor may have been fired (at least he claims so) because of denigrating religion. People seem to be pissed off that it happened and in the US it is wrong for this to happen.

In the Sudan example. A teacher is for sure being prosecuted by the government for insulting religion. The government specifically goes after anyone that says anything bad about Islam (I doubt they extend that "protection" to any other religion). It is written into their law. It is not a mistake or an outrage if someone is prosecuted for insulting Islam. It is an outrage there if they are not prosecuted.

Also notice how instead of being outraged that a woman would be prosecuted this way the government is forced to provide massive protection to this teacher so she is not killed.

As far as the UK law goes for blasphemous libel. It doesn't look like it is even valid law anymore.

From the article:
The passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the courts to interpret the law in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The offence of blasphemous libel is believed by some to be contrary to the freedom of speech provisions in the ECHR. However, just before the introduction of the HRA, a claim that the blasphemy law is inconsistent with art.10 of the ECHR (providing for freedom of expression) was rejected in the case of Wingrove v UK (1997).

Yet being a teacher, living is Sudan, and not understanding they have a Theocratic Dictatorship is foolish to say the least.

I am sure she made the ludicrous mistake of logically considering that she wasn't being offensive by letting children vote on a teddy bear's name. I mean the gall of her... she should have known... let's blame the victim... I mean it would be insane to blame the repressive theocracy.

UPDATE: They just sentenced her. 15 days in jail and deportation. Lucky for her. Now you just have to hope that no one decides to try and kill her before (or after) she is back in Britain, as there have already been calls for her death. However, they seem to be taking her security pretty seriously.

On another note... Crank #6
"...I am certain that this woman would face at least as hard of a time in the US if she named a teddy bear Jesus."

Please tell me you are joking? They make sex toys in the shape of the cross here and Andres Serrano does not seem to have been lashed or jailed by anyone for Piss Christ to mention a couple examples.

Now try dipping a Koran or image of Muhammad in urine in Sudan (or anywhere in the Middle East) and see where that gets you.

I think I'd prefer to get tased for a bit of mouthing off, rather than mauled.

Mauled to death that is...

Seriously are there no New Testament scholars among you?

Even the ever benevolent, violence hating, peace loving and generally good natured Jesus Christ has his moments of badassery...

Matthew 10:34-36

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
“a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter–in–law against her mother–in–law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household"

Yes it is a reference to Micah 7:6 which is real emo... but hey... Jesus doesn't bring peace. He wants to bring you a sword and divide your own house against itself. Don't get more baddass than that.

Doesn't seem like the LA area is a prime spot for glaciation.

Problems are definitely:

-color

-lack of biohazard symbol

-aluminum cans might be better than nothing or cardboard (although probably about the same as cardboard) but are not really puncture proof at all

-you are filling a brightly colored soda can with infectious waste that also happens to be sharp

-the cap locks on by suction? really? permanently? it wont come off on the way to the landfill where the folks collecting cans for scrap aluminum crush it with their hands only to end up with a palm full of infectious sharps?

Remember that soda bottles and cans are made to be as thin as possible while still holding soda and not breaking. Real sharps containers are designed to never be punctured by sharps.

I am in FULL agreement with the lame design of cardboard sharps containers. But instead of deploying these soda can time bombs into the field I think we should seriously consider getting funding for real, sturdy, sharps containers and educating those who may come into contact with them in a landfill what to look for and avoid (i.e. big red or blaze orange biohazard symbols). There is an answer but it isn't by stuffing food and drink containers full of infectious sharps.