MakemineVanilla

Choosing what part of the conclusion(s) to emphasise is where the politics start.

The Daily Mail takes the same report and declares that immigrants from outside Europe have cost the public purse £100bn. The same report, two axes being ground; who do you believe? http://tinyurl.com/l7nxfw2

Are the reel-to-reels both direct-drive? The Fostex is very collectable as there aren't that many around compared with the Tascam Portastudios, these days.

These pictures should be banned. I can't play a note but always get a semi at the mere sight of musical instruments. Anyone got any of naked saxophones? What sort of tape-recorders are those - Akai? The less said about my response to reel-to-reels the better?

I just watched that Brand interview with Paxman. That's 10 minutes of my life I won't be getting back. Are people really getting excited about somebody spouting sub A Level politics drivel? And Brand wasn't much better. Saturday's Daily Mail had a double-page article attacking him. They would. But if the Daily Mail hate him, he can't be all bad!

I just watched that Brand interview with Paxman. That's 10 minutes of my life I won't be getting back. Are people really getting excited about somebody spouting sub A Level politics drivel? And Brand wasn't much better. Saturday's Daily Mail had a double-page article attacking him.

I can remember everyone freaking out when he released Atlantic Crossing.

The overreaction to Brand's comments says far more about the state of things than what he actually expressed himself. It seems that the establishment see any dissent as a threat and are determined to ridicule anyone who dares to express anything other than the platitudes of the ideology. If they think Brand is a threat who needs dealing with, then how fearful must they be about revolutionary thought flourishing? For the revolution to take place there needs to be a disaffected educated middle-class and the high rate of unemployment amongst graduates surely must risk creating one.

Just thinking about that album gives me a sore throat as I remember singing along to Mandolin Wind. Was this Rod's final hour?

Although stalkers can be very annoying.

People taking SSRIs are always an interesting study because they inhabit some vague narcissistic mindset where they are so indifferent to what others think that they actually lose all empathy for those around them. You don't notice normal rules of interaction until someone ceases to follow them. Autistic people are also a revelation.

It was still in the prototype stage, which was basically me saying, 'Ommmmmmmmmmm' with a crystal balanced on my head. I could only get an engaged tone and the operator said my chakras were out of sync.

I suppose it gives some credence to the reports that Cameron is often heard saying that Ed Miliband is not the biggest red **** he has ever seen.

Simplification is a good and necessary starting point. Look up 'Pauli's exclusion principle' and it looks impenetrable but when Cox explains that no two identical electrons can occupy the same energy state it makes sense, as to why molecules can be stable. But Cox's point is really to demonstrate the ability of quantum physics to predict theoretically what later is proven to be true, or what Feynman would call the greatest of certainty. That is a decent starting point and the questions begin to multiply from then on. I was interested to find out today that there has been some serious controversy about Cox's claims about electron energy-levels and Pauli's exclusion principle. In his determination to keep it simple he had stated that if an electron's energy level is changed in a substance on earth all identical electrons in the universe would change accordingly. This inspired every Pantheist to conclude that their beliefs are true and that instantaneous communication across the universe is possible. It is definitely the assumption that I made. So in his effort to simplify Cox led the audience astray. And my plan to communicate with alien life-forms over light-years, has had to be scrapped. Things can only get better, as someone once sang.

When the Chipping Norton set are romping around their bonfire beneath the full moon chanting the number of the beast, who knows who is hiding beneath those animal masks?

is there a link to this policy as I'd be interested to read a bit more about it You are probably correct in questioning my assertion. It is more likely that the Tories put VAT on fuel because they much prefer regressive taxation, which hits the poor disproportionately, rather than progressive taxes which hit the rich. Apologies.

The Tories put VAT on domestic energy supply because they thought making energy more expensive would allow them to persuade the electorate to accept nuclear. * Now that they have got their new nuclear programme, they should remove the VAT. This area of the debate seems to be being avoided. * The public's loss of faith in nuclear all stemmed from the lies a previous Tory government told about the Windscale fire back in 1957.

A lot of people seem to care an awful lot about convincing other people that they don't care what they think.

What about a haiku? David C. dick-head People queue at the food-bank He praises Jesus

Dave Cameron was born a great toff At the peasants he always does scoff Those scrounging rough oiks Should get on their boiks He said, elbowing his way to the trough

Simplification is a good and necessary starting point. Look up 'Pauli's exclusion principle' and it looks impenetrable but when Cox explains that no two identical electrons can occupy the same energy state it makes sense, as to why molecules can be stable. But Cox's point is really to demonstrate the ability of quantum physics to predict theoretically what later is proven to be true, or what Feynman would call the greatest of certainty. That is a decent starting point and the questions begin to multiply from then on.

It definitely is dated but it is just unimaginable that they could produce anything as good these days. TV science documentaries are just too slow these days and for every bit of information offered, the viewer has to be given fifteen minutes of fancy graphics to flatter their latest TV purchase. Horizon is completely unwatchable these days. One of the paradoxes of the age is that we have a more educated population than at any other time in history but the media is pitched at a population of morons. I thought (our Brians) wonders of the universe was better, simply more up to date. Not wishing to write off Brian Cox too prematurely, I decided to take a look at him doing lectures. Without doubt this is my preferred format and at least he has the good grace to take the piss out of the crass production values of his Wonders series. So today the mundanity has been relieved by thoughts about the implications of Pauli's exclusion principle, calculating the age of the universe from Hubble's constant and diamonds 1.4 times the mass of our sun. Which is nice!

I quite agree. That is what Harvey means by government making finance more lucrative than manufacturing. Why invest in capital goods if there is a better return from finance? This is what happened to the American car industry where the financial sector became bigger than the car making part.

It definitely is dated but it is just unimaginable that they could produce anything as good these days. TV science documentaries are just too slow these days and for every bit of information offered, the viewer has to be given fifteen minutes of fancy graphics to flatter their latest TV purchase. Horizon is completely unwatchable these days. One of the paradoxes of the age is that we have a more educated population than at any other time in history but the media is pitched at a population of morons. I thought (our Brians) wonders of the universe was better, simply more up to date. Cox's Wonders of The Universe fulfils all my objections to modern TV perfectly. Why does he need to fly to Victoria falls to explain a blackhole? The analogy is weak and the images are just distracting. It certainly looks great but what has it to do with sheer scale and mystery of a blackhole? How can it be possible for the audience to watch the distracting pretty images and then be in the right frame of mind to contemplate the complexities of general relativity?