Anon - this is enitrely correct and will be entirely ignored.
But then I'm on the far imaginary orthogonal plane of politics so I would sya that.
270 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Feb 2010
Those abortion clinic bombings - those guys presumably weren't true Christians?
"There is no more violent religion in the world"
Religions can't be violent - a religion is just a collection of abstract stuff with no vital force.
"Even at its worst Christianity never said that you'd get to Heaven by killing as many people as possible,"
A lot of people thought otherwise during the Crusades.
"So will someone please explain to me why a religion which long ago learned the error of its ways."
Look it's simple: allowing your thought processes to be dictated to you by someone else claiming to speak on the behalf of a divinity - because face reality, most people calling themselves Christian have for the most part of history not been aware of the scripture for one reason or another - is an idea that lets sociopaths dictate society.
Christianity's tennets are wholly irrelevant for the most part but the idea that X or Y is a worse or better religion because passage A subsection 7 can be said to be dictated by a slightly better kind of ignorant, illerate sociopath doesn't moral high-ground make.
So again: religions don't learn because they're not an agency. Plenty of people calling themselves Christian are doing some horrible shit around the world.
"but one which still has several significant branches killing as many people as possible in the name of their religion is heavily defended from anyone who would dare say it might be dangerous by the same people?"
Can someone please show me a statement along the lines of, "I'm not a Muslim but I believe it is their right if they wish to kill me in the name of Allah because to do otherwise would be to surpress their beliefs and I cannot in all good conscience so that as a liberal" or stop repeating this absolute nonsense? Thanks.
"The problem with guaranteeing free speech is that you can't hold it up as the be all and end all while simultaneously saying that the EDL have the right to say anything they want but Anonymous don't have the right to say that person X is a member of the EDL."
Free speech doesn't mean I get to take your bank details and publish them for general use. It's commonly understood to mean, "being free to make a political statement no matter what that is". So I could say I believe I should have the undeniable right to publish your bank details but that doesn't mean I can do so and say it's my right because of "free speech". Unless I could argue your personally identifiable details are political but I don't see that as likely to be considered valid.
Anyone else labouring under the idea it's anything else needs to get aboard the clue train.
"Its the same way all the supposed "edgy" commentators, writers and comedians in the media love to stick the boot in to christianity but are too scared to do the same to islam"
Most comedians - like everyone else with any damn sense - write about what they know. When "sticking the boot in" really means, "I was raised CofE and here are the silly things that happened". Fear is irrelevant and plenty of jokes have been made on Islam but that doesn't fit in with your prefab Daily Mail built worldview so whatever eh?
"If you asked why they don't they'd just accuse you of being racist "
No. See above.
The MailOnline is more your pace - back there with you and leave the thinking to grown-ups.
> Even if it's true, consumers don't have a spare 100bn lying around, so what *don't* they buy to pay for e-mail?
No, I definitely have a couple of mill down the back of my sofa I just haven't been bothered to spend yet. I would definitely use it for FaceBook and GMail if only the Free Market would just give me the chance!
But the ones who were familiar with them were more of an elite given that the ubiquitous nature of computers wasn't there. Most people weren't going to see computers so had no chance of being able to get to grips with them.
Nowadays it's assumed that yoof know computers (like the VHS recorded before) but of course just like anything else people are on the whole ignorant of how things work making a slack-jawed work experience lad no more helpful than a cardboard cutout when it comes to actually *doing* something with these beige - but increasingly coming in a range of delightful colours - boxes that might require a modicum of intelligence.
Digital natives - my arse. What's important and always has been is the aptitude of the individual - age is irrelevant to that.
@AnoymousCoward
I never asked them so I really don't know what caused them to be wary of Win8. Never really crossed my mind - first thing I thought was "well I was going to go for Win7 anyway on that assumption but I'm surprised that you'd even be thinking about it." They read The Sun (ugh) so I don't know if there's anything in there that has warned them off and I'm not aware of anyone of their friend's having a Win8 device.
Maybe those adverts for it really put them off. In which case <insert Eadon caps MS FAIL shouty text>.
> There are more Windows 8 users than Linux on desktop users combined. Deal with it.
All I know is that when I bought my parents a laptop for Christmas that they knew enough about Windows 8 to mention that they would prefer not to have it. These are not technical people. They have used Ubuntu on an old XP PC I upgraded and dealt with it fine but wanted Windows because that's easier for them (as far as they understand any of this) because that's what other people use. And they knew from a position of not really having the knowledge or experience to really form a view otherwise that Win 8 was not for them.
Is there anyone out there who isn't paid to do so singing the virtues of Win 8? Or are people just using what comes with their machines because if they had a choice even those with a small amount of knowledge will be avoiding Win 8? You know, like this survey is showing.
I hardly think market inertia is anything for an MS fanboy to be getting wet about. Win 8 is clearly not winning any friends.
But, but... only backwards cultures who refuse to bend to the obvious superiority of *our* arbitrary distinctions on what is or is not worthy of being food.
I mean they even eat horses on the continent and they're a lot closer to being as civilised as Brits! You've no hope with those backwards types.
Now excuse me whilst I tuck into my lobster.
Eating arthripods indeed - disgusting.
But, but... starving, children!
Not that we can say with 100% confidence that the economic velocity of the money spent at the auction might not actually eventually spur on someone to spend something related to not just starving children but all manner of things the OP may approve of.
I mean, come on people. Stop being so damn silly about this.
"Your point was? Just because you weren't offered engineering drawing as an option at school doesn't mean that it doesn't and shouldn't exist"
No. Perhaps try reading what I said.
"The failings of your personal IT training also have nothing to do with it."
<sarcasm>Yes. I do so weep that I have not had the benefit of primary school or secondary school IT training. Because it's really crippled my IT career. </sarcasm>
<-- That would be the point by the way.
"but I don't suggest that this part of the course or something similar should be dropped entirely."
So explain to me how my peers managed to sort this out when PowerPoint didn't even exist when we were in schools?
Could it perhaps be because it's just not even slightly challenging to use for what it is mostly used for? That maybe if there is something more advanced maybe they could get their employer's to train them for it rather than for businesses to expect them to be trained by schools?
"Here's the point you seem to be missing, badly: schools should teach BOTH the theory and the practical."
Here's the point you seem to be missing, badly: your definition of practical is FUBAR.
"The job of the school system is to teach BOTH theoretical and practical subjects."
As what point does using something practical that may not be the thing used by industry sector X make it not practical? This idea is ass-backwards.
"subjects like engineering drawing and IT are pretty relevant."
I don't think I have ever been taught engineering drawing and I didn't learn anything IT relevant from school - if anything I was the one leading the school. Probably not uncommon for anyone of my generation with an interest in computers.
Apparently those with less aptitude of my age can struggle along anyway so I guess it doesn't matter that none of my peers were using the computers of two decades+ in the future because they didn't exist yet either.
"The last thing we want is for one side of the equation to be taught in exclusion to the other, and yes, one of the aims is to prepare students for work in the real world."
And who knows what "the real world" will be like by the time they reach it? Sure as hell the world of IT has changed a lot since I was in primary school. Otherwise I demand compensation for the fact that Folio on the BBC Micro did not prepare me for MS Word!
I do not like this mindset. I would prefer we teach children to think and have adults capable of adapting to the world they find themselves in.
Set expectations low and expect them to be met.
"As for buying Macs for design work, they should be buying whatever is being used out in the real world so that the students know what they are doing when it comes to getting a job."
Despite what many may think - especially businesses - school is supposed to be an education, not an apprenticeship.
The dumber the better. Give me decent output connectors so I can route stuff through my own boxen - which you will never be able to better configure than me for my needs - you concentrate on making sure the screen shows what's necessary and does so with the minimum amount of fuss.
"There are a few countries that have been run by atheists, and it's no more beautiful story than compared with the fundamentalistic theist ruler-ships. I can name a few from both sides, can you?"
Please do. And then please go onto explain how it is in any way sensible to lump in all people who are essentially only bound together by one philosophical statement - which is in essence a rejection of another one - as being in any way comparable to those who identify themselves as ascribing to a complete set of philosophical statements.
Because if you want to argue Hitler was an athiest (when the story is far more complex than that) in the same way Richard Dawkins is an atheist and hence if Richard Dawkins was Pope there would be a Holocaust you are so missing the point your target might as well be in a parallel reality.
Otherwise please continue on how the assertion "dieties don't exist," has any inductive logical outcomes on matters of morality, economics or politics that would be germain to the direction a country would take under the leadership of someone who held that particular assertion to be true.
"This being of course because a frightening percentage of people now text / email / socially networkalise themselves in this manner anyway"
People have always used shortcuts and abbreviations. The problem is not in the jots or tittles or particular grammatical constructs or spellings - it is entirely possible to understand these conventions. The problem is that often these people are inarticulate anyway meaning trying to extract sense was always going to be an uphill battle. Unfortunately I don't think that is a problem that would go away simply by eliminating a particular coloquial phonetic construct de jour.
There are plenty of pre-recorded items on News 24 such as Click and Reporters which could fall under that category. A number of times these pre-recorded items do get bumped though for "breaking news" so I for one would be happy if they were available online at the point when they were ready for broadcast rather than at the point at which they were scheduled for broadcast.
"Banning things does not stop the root cause of these killings, someone has suffered a short circuit in their brain which has caused them to want to destroy....."
That violence is a necessary tool for survival which has tensions with civilised living does not make it a "short circuit". The actions of sociopaths cannot be easily reduced to a simple cause an effect though so rarely gets talked about because arguments trolling about what particular piece of media technology, low art, economics or weapons technology is to blame is much easier.
Indeed this is the point: it is not a "proof" that no concept one might label god can exist but the common idea that there's a infinitely loving god (i.e. the one Bible thumpers will bang on about) out there is weaker. It is simply the equivalent of saying, "you haven't even scratched the surface of the idea you think you know so much about to me."
Of course this is not exactly contraversial since theologians have been knocking that one back and forth since it began.
I doubt your reasoning. We have perfectly cromulent hardware success stories coming from Cambridge including the ARM and we punch way above our weight in software terms. It's hard to argue the cheapness of the Spectrum isn't part of the reason why so many were able to get into software. It helped in my case. (Age 7).
Nothing about scoffing just pointing out the obvious: I cannot think of much that I've ever called my bank for that did not involve sensitive information.
What your saying reduces to:
"Twitter is high profile right now so if you hassle your bank on it you'll bypass the normal queues. This doesn't solve any real problems but at least for the moment you can pretend it does and also pretend that it's actually anything fundamentally to do with Twitter."
Please, let's not have any nuance in discussions on human behaviour. Let's all just pretend it's nice and simple and we can get back to assuming that the cultural or personal explanation de jour really sums everything up about a war that lasted over five years across mutliple countries with its roots - like everything else - extending much further back.