Posts by No, I will not fix your computer

It's too easy.... don't do it!

>>bulldogs are actually weakly genetic freaks and shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Bulldog is their mascot? hmmm... hold back... don't say it...

More seriously @jake

While you agree with PETA, you still breed Whippets and Greyhounds? heart problems, often discarded after their working career ends, you're not too far divorced from a bulldog breeder, some dogs are bred for what they look like and some are bred for what they can do, don't think you're any better just because they have a practical rather than aesthetic application.

@You know when rocket bottom is reached

"unfortunate personal circumstances"

Not really, this was a deliberate scheduling exercise to get some vague publicity for the big white elephant of manned space exploration, it's a very cost effective way of getting in the news, no outlay, a slightly stressed out mum and dad, quite a bit cheaper than sending butterflies into space.

@wv9e

Given that the US space program was only possible because Nazis and War Criminals and the Chinese have more advanced technology that the US I suspect they have more to gain than the Chinese. Nothwithstanding, America has a long history of stealing inventions from other countries (aeroplanes, cars, trains, telephones, integrated circuits, the internet, and list goes on and on)

>>Osama Obumma is a clown and a fool

^^ The US has no money, why would a (competent) leader throw good money away pointlessly? His focus is on medical research which has a real practical benefit.

Ahhh....

@Paul 4

The point was (as you obviously missed it), the church historically kept people in the dark, controlled education and information, as anything on the 'net will potentially be around forever, there will be no hiding what they have said an as the church changes their stance on things (earth being at the centre of the universe etc.) people will look back and possibly laugh, because this information will be easy to access more and more people will realise that the church is "a bit stupid", OK to give you an example, did you realise that depending on thier rank in the church people used to be able to grant "indulgences" which is time off in purgatory?

Oh, and calling me a bully for openly saying that I find other peoples "deeply held faith" funny? Have a word with yourself, "deeply held faith" that doesn't affect other peoples lives (psychosis or otherwise) is none of my concern (although I still reserve the right to find it funny), but if I get a knock on the door by the god squad I have the right to chalenge what they say and the same is true for the 'net, "Priests 2.0 to evangelise on the net " should expect "Ridicule 2.0 is the rational response", not "Agree or ignore".

@Adam, Mithvetr, Tom

Jemma is a victim of the church, and you cannot dismiss her pain with a "every faith has it's share of extermists", remeber that Stalin didn't kill anyone "in the name of Atheism" and Hitler used his christianity to justify his actions (Mein Kampf and his speeches also documented his christianity) and even if you say "he was just saying that to get people to follow him", they still followed him because they thought it was their christian duty.

Special note @Tom did Jesus rise from the dead? did he even exist? There's evidence of people like Jesus existing, performing similar "tricks" (for want of a better word), oddly enough I have seen a technically "dead" person revived but I see no reason to follow christanity, judaism, islam, scientology etc. (all religions made up by men), have a look at the books written by Karen Armstrong, she's not an "angry athiest" but documents clearly a firm evidence base of how religions appeared, e.g. how Deuteronomy was "found", and as soon as you realise there's serious doubt on the validity of that book it puts the whole of the Old Testament, New Testament, Koran and Torah in question.

In other news.....

A new multi-billion dollar experiment team will be putting "things" in microwaves to "see what happens".

@Anonymous Coward 12:46

>>The church may not be able to prove anything, but until you can prove them wrong your worse than them. There views don't harm people, but many people get strenght and hope from them.

Church views do harm people;

Historically; Crusades, Inquisition to name but two (and the understandable Islamic backlash)

In recent history, on the day of remberance it's probably inapropriate to mention it but Hitler used his Christianity to justify his actions, perhaps if the Pope condemmed him then his public support would have been weakened and millions of people would not have suffered?

Dogmatically; If the laws of Duteronomy or Leviticus are followed then there are horrific and unjust punishments.

Look at the suffering caused by Mother Theresa, if the donated money went to medication rather than to the Vatican then less people would have suffered and died, on that note why did she take money from the Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier?

I find your comment about condoms absolutely disgraceful, saying that using condoms is a sin, and worse actually saying that they don't prevent HIV infection has caused millions to suffer, and no, saying "well, they shouldn't have sex outside marrage" doesn't make it right, by a long chalk.

>>many people get strenght and hope from them

Ignorance maybe bliss, faith in a non existent afterlife, belief that you are one of the few chosen ones to be saved, belief that one of the various gods thinks that you are special might be a comfort, but wouldn't it be better to just be nice to people, be good for the sake of it not because you think it might give you eternal life but because it's actually the right thing to do?

Don't waste your life worshipping a non existent god and following irrelevant dogma, if you want to be good, then be good, don't judge people for having consensual sex before marrage or with someone of the same sex (or even with themselves!) just because some ancient scrawlings are interpreted in a particular way.

There are many, many people who work in the church because they want to be good, and in fact are (I think) good people, if the church wasn't there they would still work for charities, be good people support others, try make the world a bit better, they don't really need the church or it's dogma and neither does anyone else.

Only once you are free of (religious) dogma can you be an altruistically good person.

How about zero lag relays?

Given that entangled qbits pass their information faster than the speed of light (instantly) over any distance a qbit relay (running a TCP/IP qbit bridge) could give earth/mars and mars/earth lag of no more than a local LAN.

Re: I will not reduce my self to argumentum ad hominem

If I make the assumption that you either own or intend to own an iPhone then your argument is "ad hominem" at least from a circumstansual perspective, this is doubly true if you take into account your assertion "their profit margin is not my problem as a consumer", but of course it is, and that was my point, whilst you may not care that the producer of a product may fail because of a fragile bottom line, I find your blindness when it comes to the fact that they attempt to protect their product (therefore their bottom line) very short sighted.

To answer your title, It is unfair of me to indicate that you are a numpty just becuase you have displayed a numpty attitude, however everything I have read, written by you implies you are, in fact a numpty, I'll summarise, I believe that it is in a consumers best interest not to undermine producers of good products, I have inferred (from that which you have written) that not only do you think that this is irrelevant, you think it's a consumers duty! perhaps if your thinking was a little less INTP you'd be able consider that the world is not just you.

For all you non-thinking headless chickens.....

If you can't be bothered to read the story properly, then go here; http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/statement-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en

If you can't be bothered to follow the link then read below (taken from the site)

<><><><>

The press have inaccurately reported what Harwoods and Harebreaks are; they are not open public facilites. They never have been. They are closed, fully supervised facilities.

They are no different to other fully supervised facilities, like schools, playgroups or nurseries - where adults are not allowed to stay.

Parents and carers are, of course, welcome to bring their children safely into the sites and settle them in.

If parents aren't happy leaving their children - there are lots of other options open to them. In the town, there are 4 community centres, 5 children’s centres, over 40 areas of park and playgrounds, as well as a museum, two libraries... These are also free to attend and open to everyone.

<><><><>

Same rules as schools etc. not about state control (fools), and El Reg.... half a story is not a story, unless it was troll-bait in which case... they shoot! they score!

Given the options......

Yes : Anyone who knows that God exists for a fact is probably delusional

No : Anyone who knows that God does not exist for a fact is probably delusional

Probably : Rational Theists (if there is such a thing)

Where's "Probably Not"?

This is the most rational category, and where most Atheists (and anyone who had genuinely thought about it rationally) would put themselves, given the absence of this category "No" is the closest, I suspect that the survey gave the most accurate result possible given the critera.

Pie Charts

I started making pie charts and then this big American came a long and ate them, fat bastard. Well we know who eats all the pies these days.

@Paul 4

>>So much hatred and finger pointing coming from atheists. At least most religions try and spread love and happyness, even if some people miss that when they get to involved.

Is your head in the sand? religion gives us nothing but an excuse to do things unquestioned, if you want to do good because you are a good person, then do good, if you want to do bad because you're a bad person, hiding in the shelter of religion will let you do this, either way getting rid of religion will still allow good people to do good but bad people will have to justify their bad deeds in a different way (which would be a lot harder to do rationally).

The world would be a better place withour religion.

Meh.....

How many people will this affect?

Contractors with less than 3 years accounts? so you *might* not be able to buy a new house, why is this a big deal? if you don't have any proven track record or guaranteed income why should you be lent hundreds of grand? seems sensible to me, OK so if you have two and a half years of accounts and the contractor market was such that you *know* you'll be able to make the repayments it will be really annoying, so don't sell your current house yet or rent for a bit, in fact selling and renting gets out of the whole "chain" issue then buying with nothing to sell is also quicker.

Sounds like the FSA are on the ball to me.

Actually you're all wrong

You have to remeber that everything is relative;

"it doesn't spin about its own axis, instead always keeping the same face to its primary"

This is (almost) perfectly correct, relative to earth (it wobbles a bit so, over time we can see 57% of the moon).

For something to be purely spinning, it has to rotate about an axis, i.e. after one rotation it will occupy the same space, which of course the moon does not do as the axis itself is moving, the moons movement is far more complex (precession being the most obvious factor, note that the moon is in a decaying eliptical orbit, but earths rotation, the solar system rotates within the milky way and the milky way rotates within the universe which of course is expanding and these all affect how things move).

So the moon does experience [geometric i.e. relative] rotation, but the axis of rotation is actually the centre of the earth and moon gravity centre (which is roughly at the earths surface), i.e. the moon does not spin on it's poles, however you could say that the moons axis of rotation is just above the earths surface (which would make the original quote wrong).

So, David and Stuart, if you are going to try and pick (pedantic) holes in a most excellent article from Finbar Saunders at least make sure you're right (which you're not, or at least you're just as wrong)

Guns don't kill people......

.......Americans do

The issue is not guns, a quick hop over the border to Canada (who have similar laws* and almost identical levels of gun ownership), shows it's not the laws, it's the people.

I'm English, I live in the UK, I own guns, I don't think that Americans should be allowed guns because they can't be trusted, but it's too late, there are too many guns there and too many ways that new gns can enter the country.

On the "right to bear arms" thing, that was in there to ensure that the government could be overthrown if they didn't act on behalf of the American people, this will never happen due to the fact that loyalty to the president is more important than free thinking (probably why Bush v2 survived so long), why do you think sedation acts (like the patriot act, the latest and most powerful) protects the government and not the people?

*when I say similar, this is very broad and I don't mean mental laws like the one where it's illegal NOT to own a gun (Kenesaw in Atlanta?)

Meh

So what? it got the make and model from the number plate and used that to suggest oil?

1. If the recognition software was better it wouldn't need the number plate.

2. You don't own a number plate, the DVLA do (not even a chavvy one).

3. There were no personal details used

Now, if it flashed up the last recorded owners name, that would be a problem.

Although, distracting a specific driver (deliberately) is probably a bit stupid, my guess it's just a publicity stunt, if you object to this then boycot Castrol, if you have your oil changed at a garage then tell them you don't want Castrol, simple.

@MnM

>>You do talk a lot of ugly bollocks.

This is true... do you know me?

>> We (humans) have got culture now, and have done for, 40,000-odd years. So evolutionary origins, whatever they may be, are far from the be all and end all.

True and unlike Dawkins I don't belive that evolution can explain everything, however 40,000 years (how do you define culture?)* compared with 160,000 (homo sapiens) is a much smaller number, but lets go back to that 40,000 years assumption, I see no social leveling for women at all past 500 years ago, even today, in the UK, women don't have equal pay or political power, so one could argue that we are still not cultured, so yes the biological imperitve is still very, very strong

>>Then there's your fixation with breasts. What about shiny hair? Good legs? Would you like to keep them special (i.e. covered up) as well? Or perhaps you're not a leg man (most adolescents aren't).

Ummm... this article is about breasts, and personally, for me I enjoy a bit of mystery, I could describe all the other things that I find pleasurable, but that's a bit off topic don't you think?

>>And to give it due focus, what is with your premise that people should be modest? I really think you'd be happer as an aphid. So much more to that piece but you couldn't see beyond the norks.

When talking about breastfeeding, I actually said "if it's done modestly I can't see how anybody can complain" personally I feel I can tell the difference between a woman breastfeeding and a bit of cleavage in a plunging neckline summer top, one I may find sexy, one I'll probably find "nice", I wish breastfeeding in public was more acceptable 20+ years ago when my daughter was born, and yes, I do prefer a bit of modesty (sorry if this offends), topless beaches are novel for a while, but they do make breasts "ordinary". Something being "sexy" often has more to do with the unknown than the known.

>>Though I tread on extremely thin ice here, that the Moderatrix hasn't dignified your tripe with a correction is, I believe, a reflection of how beneath contempt it was.

Different women have different viewpoints, some would agree with me and some would not, the evolutionary argument for breasts being a sexual device is sound (don't forget that a peacocks tail is a sexual device), but just because they have a strong sexual selection aspect it doesn't mean that they are sex "organs" (directly involved in the reproductive process) which most societies cover up, as Sarah says, it's a complex issue, and MnM, my friend, are not complex enough to understand all sides.

>>I wanted to get on with the real work of considering how ID could survive the prawn/avocado conundrum but sadly no.

For the sake of free thinkers around the world, best you stay away from it, stick to Sudoku.

*Reporter: What do you think of western civilization?

Mahatma Gandhi**: I think it would be a good idea.

**funny, although to be fair he was a nasty little racist

Re: Hmm

Oooohh... is it Troll time already?

The trouble with people of religious belief is that they believe that stating a fact (or even something just probable) this somehow makes everyything else they believe credible, like these things are connected.

For example, are religious people more, or less likely to kill themselves?

The statistics show that more agnostics/athiests kill themselves, thereby proving that religion is a good thing, but of course this is a load of shit because;

o Desperate and despairing people will often exclude those who are close, family, friends, social groups etc. sky fairy beliefs will become irrelevant to them.

o Statistically, when a practicing religious person ends their life they are far more likely to take other people with them (typically family), the statistics are skewed even more dramatically because of suicide terror attacks, bombings etc. in other words more people die because of religious suicide than non religious suicide.

o Religion as a control mechanism prevents suicide by teaching people not to question and to threaten eternal punishment for a victim of suicide, whether ot not ths is a bad thing depends on your point of view.

Personally, I'd rather read Albert Camus than the bible, I'd rather think for myself, enjoy myself, believe that life is a one-time thing, try to make life a little better for at least one other person, I know that if I wanted to I could end my life, but I've decided not to because, for me a lifetime of something is better than an eternity of nothing, Religion has no answers, it just stops people asking the questions.

Going Backwards?

If, 40 years ago the world said "OK, lets do Mars now" and lets pretend that the world, all economies joined in, imagine that it took 40 years but we did it, actually sent people to Mars, got biospheres on the Moon then on to Mars, now think about all the money that we would have pissed away doing it, all the lives lost, all the environmental damage, and we would have gained exactly what?

Zero.

Going backwards? the US might have got a big political win after losing the space race up to that point (although they had to employ SS and Nazi war criminals to do it, would they have bothered if there was no cold war?), to stop wasting natural resources, money, clever peoples time and lives is going forward, not backward.

Cock

Rosetta stone? no prior art there then (OK that's more copywrite but you get the point).

American law, like American culture is all about money, if you have more then you are more, at least many UK 'nobs' have the decency to be posh and completely skint.

Anyone remember the company Mike Roe Soft, the bloke (called Mike Roe) who had a software company, and Microsoft couldn't stop him using the name in the UK? probably get the death sentence in the US.

Whoh!

Before all you "I'm Going to Mars" freaks get excited, remember;

1. 38 days is already without slowing down (Steve), if you want to slow down you're looking at 3 months

2. This is for a tiny unit (pretty much just the engine), proof of concept really

3. A manned craft would need to be huge in comparison, sheilding, biosphere, water/air recyclers, how many will you send?

4. You'd still need convential boost for manouvers

5. You'd need a nuke to power it

6. Don't even think about landing a human on Mars, gravity is more than twice the moon lands with a bigger bump, needs a harder shove to get off again (and there aint no landing strips).

OK, so given we're unable to land on the moon and get back anymore (and it was pretty close last time), you'd need to build something damn big (or build an ISS at Mars over several years, then send someone and hope it still works), given that launch capability is pretty much nil, do you think it will happen?

OK, still think it will happen? so imagine the trillions of dollars it will cost, what will be get out of it? nothing? anything?

Cool engine, but saving a few months to get to Mars? meh

Yea, more crap we don't need that can't be recycled

Anything that adds to poisonus landfill is good by me, will give something for future archeologists to talk about.