Posts by GitMeMyShootinIrons

Answers on a postcard....

A) No, it's not, but is it any less disturbing to the environment than coal mining, masses of wind turbines tearing up the countryside or damming rivers? Not even 'do nothing' costs nothing. If we don't do this, we lose 15 years, or more to the point face 15 more years deeper in the pockets of either those reputable nations in the middle east or Russia than we should be.

B) It buys you 15 years to build up alternatives, be they nuclear (the better option), or wind/water/etc.

C)See answer B. So long as 'single interest groups' (treehuggers and/or NIMBYs) and their lobbyists as well as those loveable bureaucrats don't balls it up. Which they will....

Unless...

You go around with a Burka, sunglasses and gloves.

And then...

There are the vast majority who pay for 'up to 8Mb' and are lucky to get half, so don't see the point in changing, other than to save cash.

Or in my case one eighth - but I'm not bitter.......

Why?

For the little lady in doors to do the shopping and go and get her nails done in.

(Condescending sexist remark of the day).

Indeed....

The operative word is 'their infrastructure'. Unlike BT, Virgin Media infrastructure's history is quite clear - it was put in by a variety of previous cable companies (Telewest, NTL and others) and gradually collected together through mergers and acquisitions (many of the companies nearly went broke putting this stuff in). In that sense, they have the right to decide what they want to do with the cable infrastructure.

BT's case is much more murky. Yes, they own it, but by virtue of the privatisation. The various mechanisms surrounding how it is operated and administered (including soft as sh*t OFCOM) gives BT a great deal of wiggle room that they have have become adept at using.

And if you wrote a funky little number about MemWhoosh....

This would have the longest term of protection.

Though whether it is possible to make a funky number about computer memory, I don't know. Perhaps get Jedward to perform it......

Hmmmm.....

The USSR carried much more baggage than mere atheism - if it had money, was Jewish, was pro monarchy or had a 'face that didn't fit', it was up against the wall.

It would be interesting to compare the numbers (as compared to the populations) who died in the Crusades or during the Inquisition, or perhaps the Conquistadors tour of South and Central America?

Most Nazis were also somewhat religious - Hitler was a fair-weather Catholic and was opposed to state Atheism.

You need to consider what the motivator for a regime is. In both Hitler and Stalin's case, religion was not really that important to them - threats to the power base and a means to feed it were.

In the Inquisition, religion was the exact reason for the fun and frolics. The Crusades and the Conquistadors used the 'legitimacy' of religious support for slaughter, warfare and all that good stuff.

Personally, I think of religion is an interesting, eccentric hobby that can be misused, a bit like supporting a football team can become hooliganism. If people want to pursue it, it's their choice - so long as they don't bother me.

Hmmm.....

Of course, you'd have to ask the girl if her pussy was green as well.....

I MEANT CAT! You've all got dirty minds......