MakemineVanilla

Only divorced men actually know the truth for certain.

Or more exactly:

Such humiliation is all part of the social-sexual behaviour and rituals surrounding pair-bonding in the tribe known as homo Britannicus and its regional subspecies. Shortly after menarche the young females of the species pongo fatslagus begin to rehearse the public rituals for entrapping a future mate. These rituals consist of various subtle highly codified displays which have evolved to simultaneously attract the attention of the reluctant male while safely rejecting him at the same time. Females gather in troops to perform these rituals and it is almost unknown for unaccompanied females to initiate them. These rituals are accompanied by specific dress-codes which signal the sexual maturity of the female wearer but may vary extremely in their subtlety. Loud vocal signals are usually in evidence to attract the male's attention, accompanied by specific body movements which amount to variously ambiguous sexual display. Once the attention of the male has been elicited, the ritual is quickly brought to a close usually by some vocal insult or body language which signals that the male's sexual attention is intrusive and unwelcome. This may provoke hostility in the male but is mostly restrained by the tribal demand that he be capable of self-control. Thus can be seen the twin function of the ritual: signalling both sexual availability and testing male self-control under female taunting. These rituals tend to get more extreme during oestrus.

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.

No one could say, 'billions and billions of stars' quite like Sagan.

I notice that you can get the complete Cosmos series on DVD for less than a tenner these days, so I might buy that for someone for Christmas, if I can learn to live with the 'boring uncle who buys educational gifts' role. Sagan was great at creating a sense of awe about this stuff.

Here's Feyman talking about the importance of doubt in science:

Joey Dunlop

I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Well, quite clearly, the Abrahamic God of the Bible, father of Jesus, enemy of all other religions, which are clearly incorrect. All the evidence points to it, doesn't it? I think the point he was making was that the question still remains, thus a belief can still survive even for a scientist. The original anecdote, which is typical of those much beloved by believers, suggested that there was something rationally consistent between the scientist's scientific beliefs and his religious beliefs. This proved to be false on examination. Sorry I dont really know what you are getting at here. The original Anecdote was in response to the ops point that nothing can be ruled out, which was essentially what the bloke was getting at. How can that even be examined, not to mention false? No one can rule anything out but no one can count anything in either.

I've heard economists state that the remarkable post-war economic growth was generated by building the suburbs and road network in America and Europe and that public transport was deliberately run down, in favour of that famous economic stimulant and milch-cow of taxes, the private car. Blaming the railways is probably a bit like blaming the badgers for the TB they caught off the cattle in the first place.

I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? Well, quite clearly, the Abrahamic God of the Bible, father of Jesus, enemy of all other religions, which are clearly incorrect. All the evidence points to it, doesn't it? I think the point he was making was that the question still remains, thus a belief can still survive even for a scientist. The original anecdote, which is typical of those much beloved by believers, suggested that there was something rationally consistent between the scientist's scientific beliefs and his religious beliefs. This proved to be false on examination.

I had a very interesting talk once with a particle physicist who also happened to be a devout Christian (True story). The obvious question had to be asked in that the two would seem to be at odds with each other. His reply was simple and unanswerable...what created the singularity? That is known as the 'first cause' argument. The problem with it of course, is that something must have caused God to exist and therefore 'He' cannot be said to have all the properties those who believe in him say that he possesses. It is defeated by its own implicit logic.

Anyone familiar with the history of HS1 (the channel tunnel link) will find all the promises and reassurances about HS2 laughable. In 1987 the Tories made the use of public money for the line unlawful. The Tories changed the law in 1996 which allowed the project to go ahead with discretionary tax-payer subsidy. The project got into financial trouble in 1998 and had to be rescued by the government. It was going to be sold to Railtrack but they had financial problems it required further re-structuring. But then Railtrack got into further trouble and sold their interests to Network Rail. The line was sold on a further couple of times; ending up the property of London and Continental Railways. LCR became insolvent in 2009 and the government stepped in. The government then sold £16bn worth of assets for £2.1bn to a bunch of Canadian investors for a 30 year lease. The line reverts back to government ownership after thirty years, when no doubt billions will be spent on repairs and unpgrades, before it is sold at another massive loss to another group of lucky foreigners. So anyone who thinks that HS2 is going to be different and magically succeed where HS1 failed, probably needs their head examined. As ever the media have reduced the debate to simplistic banal idiocy.

Both the Guardian and the Independent base their cartoons on LR songs.

A great film. It is a strange feeling to find yourself on the side of the Germans when they are trying to sneak through the straits of Gibraltar.

I don't think that there is much wrong with Marx's analysis of capitalism and its built-in faults. He explains why Arkwright was pressured to use child labour and how the system gives a built-in advantage to those who normally participate in Money-Commodity-Money transactions (capitalists) compared with those who normally participate in Commodity-Money-Commodity transactions (workers). All very interesting stuff but in the real world it would seem that the worker has one big problem which neither capitalism or Marxism has ever relieved him/her of, and that is the unavoidable fact that someone, whether it be private individual or the state, is going to confiscate their surplus value. Whether 19th Century mill workers, American slaves, or 20th Century Russian peasants, someone somewhere will be confiscating the surplus value they produce, and either with force or with the threat of starvation, do as they wish with it. No system seems capable of solving this fundamental problem of the worker.

Yeah, I know, but there is more than one way to enjoy a film. Some films are so bad, a special effort is required.

I think you forgot sexist .. isn't there only 1 major'ish female character ? I like the subtle dig at Palestine I did notice the sexism but not the same as you did. The whole plot arises from the ideological notion that the male must take charge, take all the risks and generally be the rescuer, while the women say stuff like, "I'm frightened!". The ideological trope that a man must choose between his country and his family and choose his country, is also notable. The fact that the film starts in Manhattan, as sign-posted by the shot from the Chrysler building, which is near to Wall Street, seems to support my thesis. So add that to the Israel thing and the anti-Semitic accusation looks tenable. It looks like was completely wrong about it being an attack on Republicans and is actually an attack on Wall Street, which seems obvious now.

Brilliant! Thanks Mr Mooney.

I only watched the trailer of WWZ which looked visually stunning but was full of borrowings from other films. The whole 'guy must single-handedly save nuclear family from hostile and lethal force' looked a bit like Tom Cruise in War of The Worlds. The same whining female child who has to be carried as WOFTW, looked a bit too familiar. Ideologically, from the compact car they were driving, and the Brad Pit character looking a bit scuzzy, instantly made them white blue collar. This is very popular in disaster movies and I was surprised that they weren't Irish (Die Hard and Terminator), which is seen as a solid blue collar credential in America (non-wasp). Given the director's determination to establish an unmistakable blue collar identity for those we are supposed to care about, and the fact that the hostile and lethal threat are infected humans (greed), it seemed likely that the film was a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers but in reverse. IOTBS (1978) was supposed to be about the threat of communism (characters were middle-class under threat) and WWZ seems to be about greed and self-interested Republicanism (tea-baggers), wanting to attack and destroy the American working-classes, in an era of financial meltdown and economic crisis. An important issue which could decide matters is whether the zombies on the plane are travelling in first-class or second. What the trailer does not show is whether the Pitt character has any special rapport with any black characters (another American trope). Can anyone put me right on that? The film has already taken $540m and so it obviously resonated with young blue collar audiences. I haven't seen the film or read any reviews, so how inaccurate are my guesses?

Lou Reed's music always sounded more like art than a commodity. Magic and Loss was very significant to me personally. He was good enough to make a difference but different enough not to become public property, until Perfect Day was publicly executed.

I have never really got the fusion between rock and classical music - that tyrannical beat and all that.

The Enid?

I think that the Guardian article is more informative and is free from the vexatious accusation of "bad parent". It is brave enough to actually identify the groups which are at the greatest risk - dark-skinned people living in the lightless north. But it seems Geordies in general are aware of the problem and it explains why they wear so few clothes in winter.

It is very appealing on first hearing. But I am not sure if it is actually quite a bland song and I just take it seriously because it has a nice bit of cello on it and lyrics I can't quite hear. Her Scandinavian wistfulness (yes I know) seems a bit studied.