Dunno where you got "Johnny Geds" from - the article clearly references "Johnny Debs" several times.
17 posts • joined 22 Nov 2009
Don't bother waiting for Ofcom - if you don't want to pay for mobile to 0800 calls just use an 0800 wizard.
RIPA vs DEA
Have I misunderstood, or does not the RIPA amendments preventing "interception" make it impossible for an ISP to even examine your traffic to see whether illegal filesharing is taking place without the permission of both parties involved? Now THAT I would call entertainment.
I think maybe you made that description up yourself didn't you?
Where on earth did you get these ideas? God lives in the sky? The devil carries a gardening implement?
I think maybe you just sleep easier when you can write it all off as childish mythology?
I'm not sure. It might be.
Can you quote a bit more precisely which text you are referring to?
Something unproven is a fact until proved otherwise?
I thought that something unproven was a theory until proved?
I admit no-one has yet proved the existence of any of those things. Or will likely ever disprove any of those things.
That's scientific that is.
Self-contained in your madness.
It must be so disappointing to spend your entire working life equivocating, so I can understand why "scientists" do it, but puh-lease stop cloaking your "faith" as "fact".
"I believe there is no God" - a statement of faith.
I wonder if Obama ever lent anyone a book?
Surely that makes him an accessory to copyright theft?
I remember when all this was fields
This is essentially asking for a new Glass-Steagall Act - the separation of investment and retail banking?
Isn't one of the problems here that the banks are essentially in negative equity?
They used (example figures) the 10bn they had (that savers had deposited) to gamble on risky collaterised debt package gayness in the hope that they could turn that 10bn into 100bn, thus covering the original 10bn, paying 10bn in bonuses and still having 80bn with which to place more bets.
Except they blew the stack and the gayness was toxic as hell - they not only didn't make any money but the assets they bought are now worth £48.36. So they are 10bn short of even being able to cover the 10bn they originally used (and they hope no-one needs to withdraw more than £40 or so in the meantime!). But they still need to pay bonuses, or the so-called "experts" they employ might go and get better-paid jobs elsewhere (yes I imagine there's quite a queue of employers in the banking sector right now, desperate to hire incompetent morons) - so they are refusing to lend to try to build their funds back up to the level where they can have another bash at it.
It's like the film Lock Stock - we all chipped in to deal the banks into a high-stakes poker game and they spanked it all up the wall while holding a pair of 4s. Now the market wants Sting's pub and the banks are asking us to keep lending them money (they promise to pay us a whopping 0.01% interest if we do) so they can play again next week.
In the meantime (while they amass their next stake) they of course cannot lend money to anyone, as that would delay their ability to re-enter the game and take another tilt at Mad Harry's Dildo Windmill.
Looks like we all picked the wrong week to give up sniffing glue.
I know it can be spelt either way but I've always considered "inflexion" as the clearer spelling.
I think you spoke too soon
You assume the world is the way you think it is before examing the problem, rather than examining the problem from both your view and the opposing view.
If there is no God then you are correct - it's just a bunch of fairy tales.
If there IS a God then keeping a bunch of scribes from making up bits as they went along should be well within his abilities?
So with science "things are not accepted until lots of evidence has mounted up.."?
Yet science = atheism?
But my understanding is that atheism is a belief that there is NO God.
Which unless you have scientific proof that God DOESN'T exist seems to itself be a statement of faith?
Did you mean science=agnosticism?
Oh that's just super-rigorous innit
Amazing how strict the scientific community can be when pressing for proof of God but so lax with their own debunking. Either the Old Testament story is a crock, or it was a divine event - what it was NOT was " rather a lucky break". Claiming that the waters may have been parted by a freak wind event is so mental I don't know where to start. Did Moses have advanced weather forecasting skills and realise such a freak wind event was in the offing and think "That's handy, being as we're being pursued by enemy forces and all - we'll just whip across the river bed and hope the wind dies down only once we are across but the enemy is still crossing?" That level of prescience would be pretty crazy on its own, and his willingness to risk his life and the lives of his people is rather a bold move? Finally, even if it was a "lucky break", just how lucky we talking? Surely we are looking at an event that ranks in the order of millions-to-1 odds? But that's scientific enough to be considered an acceptably rigorous explanation is it? Every time I look round it seems science is becoming more and more like a cult, with Richard Dawkins as the high priest. By all means have faith, but don't masquerade as science while you do.
I like dolphins.
Maybe a bit tooooo much.
Fiddling the figures
I love "webtastic wankery" (and agree huge waste exists in the public sector), but don't we need to take account of the following (advised by a friend who works in Central Govt.):
"- financial stability / propping up banks @ 85 Bn
- debt interest @ 24 Bn
- wars @ 5 Bn
So what we're really saying is nine years of inflation equals 25%?"
No "evidence" of God.
".........the ability to live in the present, without fear that every single action might be lifted up and scrutinised out of context at some long distant future date, provides us with freedom to act."
What if we rephrase this as:
".........the ability to live in the present, without fear that every single action might be lifted up and used to judge us, provides us with freedom to act."
Imagine how we would live as terrified puppets if an ever-present God sat amongst us. Maybe he hides himself away because even a hint of his presence would terrify us into submission?
Not exactly much of a relationship, assuming he wishes for such a thing?