I don't think there's any useful information a robber can garner from Streetview that wouldn't be immediately available from a drive-by.
Yes. Well put. Of course they don't have to drive by now, so there's one less opportunity for people (locals) to see an "odd" car and someone taking pictures, or spending an inordinantly long time examining the building and gardens.
OK... Page's Lane, Haringey (near Crouch End) in London, picked at random I might add. Up the road a bit (near No 35 apparently) is a nice looking blue car (Reg RX55(or 6?) WH? - now aren't they supposed to obscure those?) parked at the side of the street. Notice the woodlands over the low fence as somewhere nice to be able to hide before, and potentially escape after.
A couple of houses up... No41... looks like an alarm box on the house (has IPS or 1PS on it - I wonder if it's http://www.ips-security.co.uk/?) - the house next door has one too, but it's obscured by plants, though I'd bet it'd be recognisable to someone who was "interested" in burglar alarms. This house also has a loft conversion and some handy pipes for climbing up to what looks like a toilet window with an extractor built into the glass - I dunno? Is that easier to break? Next door (on the corner of a cul-de-sac, so don't drive off that way!) Oh yes, corner plot means easier to get into the back garden, also with a loft conversion, and they have Sky (satellite dish on the wall!). Oh look. One of those nice little new Fiats. Opposite corner of cul-de-sac, hey look, there's a window open (two actually!) just near a drain pipe. I wonder if they always leave it open. Another window open at the back (near where the post box is if anyone's following). Next houses - aha, more burglar alarms (Capstan Security as it 'appens), and an un-named one on the next house. Last house has one too...can't quite read it but again, if you were in this business you'd recognise the logo fo' shizzle!
OK... I'm bored now, but no one knows I've been snooping. I might decide this was worth a drive by at certain times to see who's about, or even decide it's a shit hole and look elsewhere, but I've not had to move and no one knows!
... and yet there's a new law (one every damn day these days it seems!) that makes it illegal to take photos of anything that might aid a "terrorist"... as Steve Carroll found out. A Humberside Police Statement (from the link) says "Any person who appears to be taking photos in a covert manner should expect to be stopped and spoken to by police".
OK, a car with a monster camera on the roof is hardly "covert", but still. Want to research the best getaway route? Need to find somewhere to be able to park a car so you can swap motors?
I'm not sure about this whole Google Views thing. I went and found my house and the muppets decided not to obscure my car's licence plate so I asked them politely to remove my house, and they have done so - so good on 'em. I just think they should have asked first! Much in the same way as you should ask people in the street before you photograph them!
I rather like the idea of the "Google Sucks Balls" poster idea though!
If you mean that weird-ass Izal stuff that's like greaseproof paper...
"Flats" they called it! I remember it from school - it's like trying to wipe yer arse on a page from the colour supplement, and talk about zero friction, if you wipe too fast it can spread a shit streak right up to yer shoulder blades!
Thankfully you don't tend to see that stuff about much anymore - not only was it 100% shit resistant but I suspect as the stuff was plastic coated it probably didn't degrade to fast at the sewage farm! Actually, they probably fished the sheets out, hosed 'em down and folded 'em back up for re-sale!
do you think pedophiles actually need to see a sexual attitude on kids to excite themselves ??
sex doesn't work that way, and we know it.
Too true! The only way to stop people getting off on pictures of children, be it the grossest Child Pron, or the Sears Catalog, or cartoon kids, is to ban children!
Would distinguishing South Park from South Pron serve any useful purpose though? If South Park is considered ok because it is not porn then what is to stop people making porn that is marketed as comedy.
And yet surely "pron" is in the eye (and maybe hand!) of the observer! Some people (presumably?) get off on "TubGirl"... and good luck to 'em I say, each to his (or her!) own. Whatever lights yer candle/floats yer boat... and all that!
But what if there's someone out there who gets off on the South Park's somewhat stylised representation of kids? Woooooah there buddy! We can't have you getting your jollies from stupid cartoons of (think of the) children now can we!
For the law to be effective it has to stop people getting off on cartoon images of kids, or at least stop people providing said images for folks to "get off on". Does this really mean we have to ban ALL cartoon images of kids, on the off chance?
Well, I guess one good thing about it will be the demise of those awful "Bratz" dolls!
Indeed, one man's obscene is another man's Saturday night out!
Where does prohibition figure in this I wonder. For example, in the USA there seems to be a big thing about seeing breasts (and topless bathing is, as I understand it, illegal), whereas in Europe (where it's mostly legal, especially the Med beaches), breasts are two a penny and not such a big deal!
Stepping over to the Scandinavian countries and there they have a still more open attidute, and full nudity seems to be no big deal.
Is there a frisson of excitement added to the pot for images deemed 'obscene'? Think of TubGirl (OK... actually, let's not think of it!). How many of you have seen it? Is that obscene? I'd say it was obscene, and yet I've seen it (actually, of course without seeing it you can't really judge!). I've seen it and, strangely, it's not something I suddenly want to try for myself either! So can something be "obscene" and yet not "dangerous"? So it it's not dangerous why talk about making such images illegal?
As with all censorship, it's Mr. Outraged, of Middle England, trying to impose their values on everyone else, because they are right and we all need protecting from ourselves!
Do I think some things should be illegal - HELL YES! Culottes for a start, they're just Devil's Trousers!
In this case, do I think it's right to ban cartoon images of minors in sexual situations. Blimey! That's a tough one. A blanked YES will catch stuff like South Park, and is therefore, IMHO, obviously wrong - but for sure people are going "too far" in other areas and it makes sense to try and formulate a legal response in those cases. I don't know what the answer is, or even if it would be possible to distinguish South Park from South Pron in some useful legal way?
One dumb human trick when they see a tiger is trying run away. Of course they don't know that we tigers can run way faster than them and we always manage to catch them. The funny thing is that when you finally claw them they still try to fight! I, as a tiger, I am not entirely sure humans know they are alive, let alone feel pain. I think I'll have human steak for dinner tonight.
I've heard that you can get the tiger to leave you alone if you grab some shit from behind you and throw it at the tiger. I am also reliably informed that there will be shit available as required.
...Suppose, we raise the water to neck level, and then drain it.
I'd I'd hardly call anything the human experiences throughout the ordeal as pain.
Er... Ever heard of stress?
An experience such as you describe could easily result in the death of the subject from the related stress, and is not far removed, at least in essence, to what I believe is referred to, in the current vernacular, as waterboarding.
So, having successfully described a method of mental torture, how do you now feel about your "I'd hardly call anything the human experiences throughout the ordeal as pain" comment?
Nice one! Shame they're closing Git'mo, but I'm sure they can find a job for you somewhere else. Oh... Damn... I didn't even mention Hitler! oh wait,... there he is!
Sure, just as soon as the government forces your kids to go to church and for you to pay for the church expenses.
Will this be church, synagog, mosque, friends meeting house, and all other religion's various temples on each Sunday (or indeed Saturday?) or will there be some sort of cyclical approach, all people with surnames beginning with "A" go to synagog, all "B"s go to the mosque, etc...
What I find puzzling and V. annoying is the UK Gov's apparent need to make so many new laws focusing on the minutae - Why not just "Incitement to hatred"? Why specifically racial and/or religious? Is it OK, then, to incite hated against women or even (think of the) children? Short or overly tall people, don'tcha just hate them eh? Ginger people, though god knows they've got it coming! Regional differences, 'cos those easy to get on with and otherwise outwardly pleasent West Country folk get my goat with there 'oh do stay for a cup of tea and some scones with cream and jam' - DON'T THEY KNOW I'VE GOT HIGH COLESTEROL! Sheeeez!
Same with our driving laws where we have a specific law against driving whilst using a mobile 'phone - Why not just "Driving without due care and attention" - hey! That's already a law, so why the fuck not just enforce it!
The current UK Gov are such a bunch of muppets, and I'm not sure the next bunch will be much better either! The problem is that the current breed of politicians don't seem to understand that their careers should mean nothing against the backdrop of doing the right thing, but it's all about sound bites and how to fool the population into voting for them again next time!
Saddest of all, it would appear that mostly their muppetry seems to fool the population. I seriously worry about us here in the UK sometimes!
Hmmm. The problem is that most often the creationists say the world was created by their god, and for proof tend to say something like "I know it is because it is written in the Bible" or somesuch. Now it really doesn't matter how many times I listen to that sort of argument I can still reasonably quickly wiegh that against the vast body of evidence for, and the inherent simplicity of the idea of, evolution and come down on the side of evolution, and granted, to the outside observer this may appear to be "not listening".
If you, or anyone else, has any new arguments or evidence to support the creationist viewpoint then please, by all means, air them here for a fair and unbiased appraisal. Honestly, if there was one iota of scientific evidence that showed evolution to be wrong you can bet your bottom dollar it'd be front page news the world over!
Reminds me of an excellent scene in Phenomenon where some doctor is trying to work out how clever Travolta's character is (Travolta is George Malley):-
Dr. Bob Niedorf: All right, I'll start the questions, and I'll be timing your responses, and we'll be recording. Any questions?
George Malley: What's your first name?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Uh, my first name is Bob.
[George reaches across the wide table to shake hands]
George Malley: Shoot, Bob.
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Right. Name as many mammals as you can in 60 seconds. Ready? Go.
[Starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Hmm. 60 seconds. Well, how would you like that? How about alphabetical? Aardvark, baboon, caribou, dolphin, eohippus, fox, gorilla, hyena, ibex, jackal, kangaroo, lion, marmoset, Newfoundland, ocelot, panda, rat, sloth, tiger, unicorn, varmint, whale, yak, zebra. Now "varmint" is a stretch; so is "Newfoundland" (that's a dog breed); "unicorn" is mythical; "eohippus" is prehistoric. But you weren't being very specific, now, were you, Bob?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [pauses, then stops watch and laughs] Well! Ahh, I'll, uh - I'll try to be more specific. You ready for the next one?
George Malley: Shoot.
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Answer as quickly as you can... how old is a person born in 1928?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Man or a woman?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch and pauses] Why?
George Malley: Specifics, Bob.
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Okay, one more time. How old is a MAN born in 1928?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Still alive?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops watch, pauses, nods] If a man is born in 1928, and he's still alive, how old is he?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: What month?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch] If a man was born October 3rd, 1928, and he's still alive, how old is he?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: What time?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch] 10 o'clock... PM!
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Where?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch; now impatient] Anywhere!
George Malley: Well, let's get specific, Bob! I mean, if the guy's still alive, born in California, October 3rd, 1928, 10 PM, he's 67 years, 9 months, 22 days, 14 hours, and...
[takes Bob's hand to see his wristwatch]
George Malley:... and 12 minutes. If he was born in New York, he's 3 hours older, now isn't he?
[Chuckles]
Actually, I'm not sure why/how/if the "man vs woman" bit is relevant, but it's still a great scene, with, FYI, Brent Spiner as Dr. Bob Niedorf.
Ah man, I know it's a bit mushy towards the end, but it's a crackin' film - Another quote that makes me laugh ("Lace" is the love interest played by Kyra Sedgwick):-
George Malley: This is good, Lace. I think you're a good cook.
Lace Pennamin: No, I'm not. I only make two things pretty well: pork chops and, um, turkey.
George Malley: Hm. Which is this?
LOL! OK, so from next year the BBC will start building its own army of Private Police. All news readers and reporters will carry side arms. Heavier ordnance will be available from the OB camera crews (actually, that's probably true now, as they are often a special kinda mental to voluntier for war zones and the like!).
Traffic reports will be more "predictive" and heaven help you if you don't cause a jam on the A432 when they say there's going to be one!
Also, watching anything other than The BBC will, henceforth, be VERBOTEN!
Oh yes indeedy! ITER is (sort of) JET II and it's design was influenced heavily from the findings of JET.
One of the ways they have improved things is to use supercooled magnets as part (I think!) of the plasma containment system as (as we all know!) supercooling the magnets makes them superconductors and therefore MUCH cheaper to run (even factoring in the cost of supercooling the suckers). The LHC uses a similar method.
The excellent BBC Horizon program on "How to build a star on Earth" with Prof. Brian Cox talked about all this stuff in a quite approachable way, although I'm sure accusations of bias could be levelled at their enthusiasm for the subject, it was encouraging when he asked all the scientist how likely and how long and they all had a high percentage for "How likely" (80%+) and how long (15 to 25 years).
He ended with the thought that this tech could come MUCH sooner if we decided it was a good bet and invested in it, which could be the words of a snake-oil salesman or it could be the answer to the Earth's energy needs. Certainly just wheeling out the cliched "It's always been 20 years away" mantra doesn't really help. I'd say we should throw the money at it now - it certainly won't be as big a waste of funds as some of the other things we seem so happy to spend money on, and could be the first genuinely big step humanity's made for a long while!
As the other reply chap said... we ARE considerably closer now. ITER is the latest iteration of Torus based 'reactors' being built to experiment into the feasibility of Fusion as a power source. Do you think this is cheap? Did you know that less money is spent in the UK on Fusion Power research per year than is spent on ringtones for mobile phones? That'd be funny if it wasn't so sad!
I agree that this has been a long time coming, but given the paucity of the research purse it's hardly surprising, and given the HUGE benefits to be had if (when?) they get it working I'd say we should most definately be pouring more money into their budget!
Even if the outcome is we find out once and for all that we simply can't do it we'd at least know to look elsewhere!
I'd say the 'foundation' for atheism is evolution! At least part of the foundation anyway! And you don't so much believe evolution either, rather you examine the evidence and conclude it is the most likely mechanism by which we, and all the other species on the planet, got here.
That seems to be the difference between the religious and the scientists. The religious seem to only have a "religion" shaped hole and try to shoehorn the scientist's arguments into it and end up saying things like ".. he has no more right to preach his religious stance...". The scientists, on the other hand, have a "science" shaped hole and equally wrongly try to massage religious belief into it, ending up being frustrated by the apparent religion-blinkers put up to their 'reasonable' scientific arguments ("how can you not see the Earth is not flat!").
Of course, the other difference is that the religious tend to say "this is THE answer" and dogmatically refuse to budge, whereas scientists should be saying "with the current level of knowledge, this is the MOST LIKELY answer", and are willing to change that opinion over time as the sum of human knowledge grows.
Because you dislike his message or the way he, er, evangelises?
[colours nail to post]
I'm with Dawkins...
[\colours nailed to post] ... and actually support his message and his method. For too long the religious have had carte blanch on aggressive marketing (eg "do this or you will go to hell", etc) and the atheists have pussyfooted around quietly shaking their heads in, er, disbelief!
Honestly, I'm more than happy for people to believe whatever they want (some of my friends are religious!) but I seriously don't think it's right to, for example, use religious grooming to brainwash children from an early age. Case in point, to some people the Moonies is a religion, but even most other religions think it would be bad to bring children up as moonies and would indeed call it brainwashing! So please explain the difference? How is preaching your brand of religion different from someone else preaching theirs? (Obviously, not your as in you personally;-) )
The big religions seem to operate some sort of cartel where they don't seem to fight each other so much anymore, rather they band together to obtain spurious taxation rights and other legal shenanigans. Leaders of (almost) opposing religions get wheeled out for TV chat shows and the like and are never seen actually debating the relative merits of their particular brand of religion for if religion 'A' started to point out the apparent idiocy of religion 'B', and vica versa, both would (OK, maybe could) be shown to be smoke and mirrors! They tend to band together to show how magnanimous they are to share a stage/platform with the 'other' religions (see, we're not all nutters!) as they try desperately to keep the stopper in the religion genie's bottle!
Why don't the big religions debate amongst themselves? They appear to not mind (so much!) what religion you are, so long as you adhere to some religion! Surely it would be better for someone to not believe in any god than to believe in the wrong god - at least you'd think so from god's point of view!
Religion should be added to tobacco and alcohol and there should be a minimum age limit before legal exposure. That wouldn't stop parents from allowing their kids a small glass of wine with their lunch, but excessive liberalism in the household concerning any of them ought to bring the social services 'round for a quiet checkup!
After all, this is all about having some crappy touristy trivia item to stick in their pamphlets, right between the "See rock city" ad and the coupons for Shoney's.
Yer, like all that "State Bird: Penguin", "State Bread Roll: Ham and Cheese" stuff, we can add:-
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Well put. Of course they don't have to drive by now, so there's one less opportunity for people (locals) to see an "odd" car and someone taking pictures, or spending an inordinantly long time examining the building and gardens.
OK ... Page's Lane, Haringey (near Crouch End) in London, picked at random I might add. Up the road a bit (near No 35 apparently) is a nice looking blue car (Reg RX55(or 6?) WH? - now aren't they supposed to obscure those?) parked at the side of the street. Notice the woodlands over the low fence as somewhere nice to be able to hide before, and potentially escape after.
A couple of houses up ... No41 ... looks like an alarm box on the house (has IPS or 1PS on it - I wonder if it's http://www.ips-security.co.uk/?) - the house next door has one too, but it's obscured by plants, though I'd bet it'd be recognisable to someone who was "interested" in burglar alarms. This house also has a loft conversion and some handy pipes for climbing up to what looks like a toilet window with an extractor built into the glass - I dunno? Is that easier to break? Next door (on the corner of a cul-de-sac, so don't drive off that way!) Oh yes, corner plot means easier to get into the back garden, also with a loft conversion, and they have Sky (satellite dish on the wall!). Oh look. One of those nice little new Fiats. Opposite corner of cul-de-sac, hey look, there's a window open (two actually!) just near a drain pipe. I wonder if they always leave it open. Another window open at the back (near where the post box is if anyone's following). Next houses - aha, more burglar alarms (Capstan Security as it 'appens), and an un-named one on the next house. Last house has one too ...can't quite read it but again, if you were in this business you'd recognise the logo fo' shizzle!
OK ... I'm bored now, but no one knows I've been snooping. I might decide this was worth a drive by at certain times to see who's about, or even decide it's a shit hole and look elsewhere, but I've not had to move and no one knows!
Anyway, I'm just a bit uncomfortable with it all.
OK, a car with a monster camera on the roof is hardly "covert", but still. Want to research the best getaway route? Need to find somewhere to be able to park a car so you can swap motors?
I'm not sure about this whole Google Views thing. I went and found my house and the muppets decided not to obscure my car's licence plate so I asked them politely to remove my house, and they have done so - so good on 'em. I just think they should have asked first! Much in the same way as you should ask people in the street before you photograph them!
I rather like the idea of the "Google Sucks Balls" poster idea though!
"Flats" they called it! I remember it from school - it's like trying to wipe yer arse on a page from the colour supplement, and talk about zero friction, if you wipe too fast it can spread a shit streak right up to yer shoulder blades!
Thankfully you don't tend to see that stuff about much anymore - not only was it 100% shit resistant but I suspect as the stuff was plastic coated it probably didn't degrade to fast at the sewage farm! Actually, they probably fished the sheets out, hosed 'em down and folded 'em back up for re-sale!
Q. What do you think of English toilet paper?
A. Pretty rough, on the whole.
sex doesn't work that way, and we know it.
Too true! The only way to stop people getting off on pictures of children, be it the grossest Child Pron, or the Sears Catalog, or cartoon kids, is to ban children!
And yet surely "pron" is in the eye (and maybe hand!) of the observer! Some people (presumably?) get off on "TubGirl" ... and good luck to 'em I say, each to his (or her!) own. Whatever lights yer candle/floats yer boat ... and all that!
But what if there's someone out there who gets off on the South Park's somewhat stylised representation of kids? Woooooah there buddy! We can't have you getting your jollies from stupid cartoons of (think of the) children now can we!
For the law to be effective it has to stop people getting off on cartoon images of kids, or at least stop people providing said images for folks to "get off on". Does this really mean we have to ban ALL cartoon images of kids, on the off chance?
Well, I guess one good thing about it will be the demise of those awful "Bratz" dolls!
Hey ... do Huey, Lewy, and Dewy get the boot too? Baby Animals ... [SHUDDER]
Where does prohibition figure in this I wonder. For example, in the USA there seems to be a big thing about seeing breasts (and topless bathing is, as I understand it, illegal), whereas in Europe (where it's mostly legal, especially the Med beaches), breasts are two a penny and not such a big deal!
Stepping over to the Scandinavian countries and there they have a still more open attidute, and full nudity seems to be no big deal.
Is there a frisson of excitement added to the pot for images deemed 'obscene'? Think of TubGirl (OK ... actually, let's not think of it!). How many of you have seen it? Is that obscene? I'd say it was obscene, and yet I've seen it (actually, of course without seeing it you can't really judge!). I've seen it and, strangely, it's not something I suddenly want to try for myself either! So can something be "obscene" and yet not "dangerous"? So it it's not dangerous why talk about making such images illegal?
As with all censorship, it's Mr. Outraged, of Middle England, trying to impose their values on everyone else, because they are right and we all need protecting from ourselves!
Do I think some things should be illegal - HELL YES! Culottes for a start, they're just Devil's Trousers!
In this case, do I think it's right to ban cartoon images of minors in sexual situations. Blimey! That's a tough one. A blanked YES will catch stuff like South Park, and is therefore, IMHO, obviously wrong - but for sure people are going "too far" in other areas and it makes sense to try and formulate a legal response in those cases. I don't know what the answer is, or even if it would be possible to distinguish South Park from South Pron in some useful legal way?
I've heard that you can get the tiger to leave you alone if you grab some shit from behind you and throw it at the tiger. I am also reliably informed that there will be shit available as required.
I'd I'd hardly call anything the human experiences throughout the ordeal as pain.
Er ... Ever heard of stress?
An experience such as you describe could easily result in the death of the subject from the related stress, and is not far removed, at least in essence, to what I believe is referred to, in the current vernacular, as waterboarding.
So, having successfully described a method of mental torture, how do you now feel about your "I'd hardly call anything the human experiences throughout the ordeal as pain" comment?
Nice one! Shame they're closing Git'mo, but I'm sure they can find a job for you somewhere else. Oh ... Damn ... I didn't even mention Hitler! oh wait, ... there he is!
Will this be church, synagog, mosque, friends meeting house, and all other religion's various temples on each Sunday (or indeed Saturday?) or will there be some sort of cyclical approach, all people with surnames beginning with "A" go to synagog, all "B"s go to the mosque, etc ...
Not in Alabama it doesn't. Surely in Alabama "I is Jesus"!
What I find puzzling and V. annoying is the UK Gov's apparent need to make so many new laws focusing on the minutae - Why not just "Incitement to hatred"? Why specifically racial and/or religious? Is it OK, then, to incite hated against women or even (think of the) children? Short or overly tall people, don'tcha just hate them eh? Ginger people, though god knows they've got it coming! Regional differences, 'cos those easy to get on with and otherwise outwardly pleasent West Country folk get my goat with there 'oh do stay for a cup of tea and some scones with cream and jam' - DON'T THEY KNOW I'VE GOT HIGH COLESTEROL! Sheeeez!
Same with our driving laws where we have a specific law against driving whilst using a mobile 'phone - Why not just "Driving without due care and attention" - hey! That's already a law, so why the fuck not just enforce it!
The current UK Gov are such a bunch of muppets, and I'm not sure the next bunch will be much better either! The problem is that the current breed of politicians don't seem to understand that their careers should mean nothing against the backdrop of doing the right thing, but it's all about sound bites and how to fool the population into voting for them again next time!
Saddest of all, it would appear that mostly their muppetry seems to fool the population. I seriously worry about us here in the UK sometimes!
Can we change it to:-
UK Gov. Clueless
Unfortunately this might bring you to the attention of Apple's Police force ... we call them the iPlod in the UK.
If you, or anyone else, has any new arguments or evidence to support the creationist viewpoint then please, by all means, air them here for a fair and unbiased appraisal. Honestly, if there was one iota of scientific evidence that showed evolution to be wrong you can bet your bottom dollar it'd be front page news the world over!
Dr. Bob Niedorf: All right, I'll start the questions, and I'll be timing your responses, and we'll be recording. Any questions? ... and 12 minutes. If he was born in New York, he's 3 hours older, now isn't he?
George Malley: What's your first name?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Uh, my first name is Bob.
[George reaches across the wide table to shake hands]
George Malley: Shoot, Bob.
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Right. Name as many mammals as you can in 60 seconds. Ready? Go.
[Starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Hmm. 60 seconds. Well, how would you like that? How about alphabetical? Aardvark, baboon, caribou, dolphin, eohippus, fox, gorilla, hyena, ibex, jackal, kangaroo, lion, marmoset, Newfoundland, ocelot, panda, rat, sloth, tiger, unicorn, varmint, whale, yak, zebra. Now "varmint" is a stretch; so is "Newfoundland" (that's a dog breed); "unicorn" is mythical; "eohippus" is prehistoric. But you weren't being very specific, now, were you, Bob?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [pauses, then stops watch and laughs] Well! Ahh, I'll, uh - I'll try to be more specific. You ready for the next one?
George Malley: Shoot.
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Answer as quickly as you can... how old is a person born in 1928?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Man or a woman?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch and pauses] Why?
George Malley: Specifics, Bob.
Dr. Bob Niedorf: Okay, one more time. How old is a MAN born in 1928?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Still alive?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops watch, pauses, nods] If a man is born in 1928, and he's still alive, how old is he?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: What month?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch] If a man was born October 3rd, 1928, and he's still alive, how old is he?
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: What time?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch] 10 o'clock... PM!
[starts stopwatch]
George Malley: Where?
Dr. Bob Niedorf: [stops stopwatch; now impatient] Anywhere!
George Malley: Well, let's get specific, Bob! I mean, if the guy's still alive, born in California, October 3rd, 1928, 10 PM, he's 67 years, 9 months, 22 days, 14 hours, and...
[takes Bob's hand to see his wristwatch]
George Malley:
[Chuckles]
Actually, I'm not sure why/how/if the "man vs woman" bit is relevant, but it's still a great scene, with, FYI, Brent Spiner as Dr. Bob Niedorf.
Ah man, I know it's a bit mushy towards the end, but it's a crackin' film - Another quote that makes me laugh ("Lace" is the love interest played by Kyra Sedgwick):-
George Malley: This is good, Lace. I think you're a good cook.
Lace Pennamin: No, I'm not. I only make two things pretty well: pork chops and, um, turkey.
George Malley: Hm. Which is this?
LOL
Traffic reports will be more "predictive" and heaven help you if you don't cause a jam on the A432 when they say there's going to be one!
Also, watching anything other than The BBC will, henceforth, be VERBOTEN!
One of the ways they have improved things is to use supercooled magnets as part (I think!) of the plasma containment system as (as we all know!) supercooling the magnets makes them superconductors and therefore MUCH cheaper to run (even factoring in the cost of supercooling the suckers). The LHC uses a similar method.
The excellent BBC Horizon program on "How to build a star on Earth" with Prof. Brian Cox talked about all this stuff in a quite approachable way, although I'm sure accusations of bias could be levelled at their enthusiasm for the subject, it was encouraging when he asked all the scientist how likely and how long and they all had a high percentage for "How likely" (80%+) and how long (15 to 25 years).
He ended with the thought that this tech could come MUCH sooner if we decided it was a good bet and invested in it, which could be the words of a snake-oil salesman or it could be the answer to the Earth's energy needs. Certainly just wheeling out the cliched "It's always been 20 years away" mantra doesn't really help. I'd say we should throw the money at it now - it certainly won't be as big a waste of funds as some of the other things we seem so happy to spend money on, and could be the first genuinely big step humanity's made for a long while!
I agree that this has been a long time coming, but given the paucity of the research purse it's hardly surprising, and given the HUGE benefits to be had if (when?) they get it working I'd say we should most definately be pouring more money into their budget!
Even if the outcome is we find out once and for all that we simply can't do it we'd at least know to look elsewhere!
Of course _this_ side of the pond fanny means something else entirely, and may provide for the epithet "looking up old friends".
Do I win a t-shirt?
Hey Dude ... if you've got his funny remote then can't you just turn on his funny again?
I'd say the 'foundation' for atheism is evolution! At least part of the foundation anyway! And you don't so much believe evolution either, rather you examine the evidence and conclude it is the most likely mechanism by which we, and all the other species on the planet, got here.
That seems to be the difference between the religious and the scientists. The religious seem to only have a "religion" shaped hole and try to shoehorn the scientist's arguments into it and end up saying things like ".. he has no more right to preach his religious stance ...". The scientists, on the other hand, have a "science" shaped hole and equally wrongly try to massage religious belief into it, ending up being frustrated by the apparent religion-blinkers put up to their 'reasonable' scientific arguments ("how can you not see the Earth is not flat!").
Of course, the other difference is that the religious tend to say "this is THE answer" and dogmatically refuse to budge, whereas scientists should be saying "with the current level of knowledge, this is the MOST LIKELY answer", and are willing to change that opinion over time as the sum of human knowledge grows.
Because you dislike his message or the way he, er, evangelises?
[colours nail to post]
... and actually support his message and his method. For too long the religious have had carte blanch on aggressive marketing (eg "do this or you will go to hell", etc) and the atheists have pussyfooted around quietly shaking their heads in, er, disbelief!
I'm with Dawkins...
[\colours nailed to post]
Honestly, I'm more than happy for people to believe whatever they want (some of my friends are religious!) but I seriously don't think it's right to, for example, use religious grooming to brainwash children from an early age. Case in point, to some people the Moonies is a religion, but even most other religions think it would be bad to bring children up as moonies and would indeed call it brainwashing! So please explain the difference? How is preaching your brand of religion different from someone else preaching theirs? (Obviously, not your as in you personally ;-) )
The big religions seem to operate some sort of cartel where they don't seem to fight each other so much anymore, rather they band together to obtain spurious taxation rights and other legal shenanigans. Leaders of (almost) opposing religions get wheeled out for TV chat shows and the like and are never seen actually debating the relative merits of their particular brand of religion for if religion 'A' started to point out the apparent idiocy of religion 'B', and vica versa, both would (OK, maybe could) be shown to be smoke and mirrors! They tend to band together to show how magnanimous they are to share a stage/platform with the 'other' religions (see, we're not all nutters!) as they try desperately to keep the stopper in the religion genie's bottle!
Why don't the big religions debate amongst themselves? They appear to not mind (so much!) what religion you are, so long as you adhere to some religion! Surely it would be better for someone to not believe in any god than to believe in the wrong god - at least you'd think so from god's point of view!
Religion should be added to tobacco and alcohol and there should be a minimum age limit before legal exposure. That wouldn't stop parents from allowing their kids a small glass of wine with their lunch, but excessive liberalism in the household concerning any of them ought to bring the social services 'round for a quiet checkup!
Now I'd vote for that! Yes Please! Where do I sign?
Yer, like all that "State Bird: Penguin", "State Bread Roll: Ham and Cheese" stuff, we can add:-
Illinois State of Mind: Dazed!