GrahamS

I’ll take that as a no.

Why don’t you take it as scorn for your asking me to prove a -ve.

Or do we need to debate whether that is possible?

stumpy01

there will undoubtedly be other life forms out there

Sounds like blind faith to me.

Another straw man argument (quell surprise) – I’m not saying that statistics can’t be used in science, just that you are misusing statistical terms.

re’ Occam’s Razor, the (wrong) assumption that you are making is that there are billions of planets “just like earth”

Your field of cows analogy is wrong because we already know that there are lots of cows.

If I took you to the Louvre and showed you the Mona Lisa, would it be right to assume that there were loads of other Mona Lisas in art galleries around the world?

The difference between us is that when I’ve given my opinion, I’ve flagged it as my opinion.

You’ve started bandying stuff around about statistics as if that actually means anything, but it’s pseudo science.

Until the day that we actually do discover life, or something a bit more concrete than “some methane” then saying that it is “very likely” is just going way too far.

Can you offer any evidence (or even theory/philosophy) the other way?

Duh!

Why would Earth be so uniquely special that we are the only planet capable of supporting life out of the uncountable billions upon billions in the universe?

Because that’s what we know. I seem to keep trotting this out, but I’ll do it again – see Occam’s Razor

I’m more concerned about the bloody waste of time and money all these health services would have been put to to answer the stupid freedom of information request asking for the info in the first place.

Daily Wail was it?

My 2p is that as per GrahamS’ links we are continuing to find life in places where it was thought to be impossible.

On earth!

That must then result in an increase in our theoretical probability of life existing elsewhere.

Why?

the chances of there being other life ‘out there’ are relatively high

They are relatively high ?!?!?

Because you feel it in your water?

Your overconfidence makes it impossible to take you seriously.

Drac,

I think that is a bit short of “evidence”.

The scientist who released the info said “We do not claim to have identified life, nor do we think it is possible to draw that conclusion solely on the basis of methane detection”

i think it would be both naive and arrogant to think in the near infinite expanse of space there wouldn’t be another planet, perhaps thousands of planets, with intelligent life on them

Why does it have to be “naive and arrogant”?

I was just talking to someone yesterday about the fact that normal discussion is almost impossible these days without people taking up an almost instant entrenched and combative position on whichever side of the issue they decide (sometimes randomly it seems) to favour.

Given that we have absolutely no evidence of life elsewhere, it seems “naive and arrogant” to start dissing other people for holding a view either way.

OTOH, I think not.

Not bothered brushing her teeth for 10 years?

No, genetically strong teeth and low sugar diet.

Fair point though.

Despite the fact that we give much thought to child rearing and have tried really hard to imbue our children of 7 and 6 with self respect, respect for others, an appreciation of their relatively privileged position in the global world order, a sense of fun, and an interest in science, music and the arts etc…

… we’ve never really bothered about getting them to brush their teeth.

However, I don’t feel too bad about this because:

1) They drink water not squash/coke etc. and they only have sweets once or twice a week.
2) They seem to have picked up info re’ teeth cleaning somewhere along the way (school + a dentist came into talk to them at Brownies)
3) They are only just getting their adult teeth.
4) Their mum went to the dentist after not bothering for 10 years and was told that everything was fine.

Having said all that, now that they are getting their adult teeth, we’re trying a bit more to remind them to do it.

Does this make me a bad parent?

All the same things I like about crack cocaine.

You don’t necessarily need planning permission or an architect, but other than that, khani is precisely right.

May be permitted development depending on the size.

You may find that an architectural technician can draw up some plans for you if you just want something simple.

You will need to speak to building control though, and you will need a builder.

Google Sketchup is a good place to start thinking about how it might work out.

You’ll be passing Mont St Michel if you fancy doing something touristy on Sunday. Also, make sure you allow a bit of time to have a look round the old walled town of St Malo which is V nice and full of loads of little restaurants selling Moules – good to fill up there before getting back on the boat.

A walk in the woods kind of tragedy?

Yep.

This whole thing really stinks. Not just the corruption, but combine that with the personal involvement, I bet there are some very tricky conversations going on just now.

I hope Werrity has a strong constitution. This is the sort of media pressure that leads to tragedy.

I’m glad he’s gone – one of the most unpleasant Tories – and he’s got some competition.

Hopefully someone will start digging up some dirt on Lansley or Pickles next.

Z11, mcboo etc.

What you don’t account for in your criticism is anything to do with demographics.

You talk about an absolute rise in the overall budget, but conveniently forget that the UK population is growing – 5% over the last 10 years – hmmmmm….. so what would the implications of that be for the NHS budget even for services to remain the same I wonder?

Doen’t take a genius does it?

And, proportionately the elderly population (the ones who tend to need lots of health care) is growing even more.

This could, IMO, be simply addressed by asking everyone to pay a small contribution towards the initial cost, even if we’re only talking £20 or so. A kind of compulsory national insurance excess.

Can’t say I’m in favour of that, BUT, how about just telling people how much(ish) their treatment might have cost them had they had to pay for it? (edit: of course I know they do pay for it, indirectly – but I mean if they had to pay directly as they used it)

Could be done per visit to the GP, or at the end of a stay in hospital – no need for much extra admin, just a quick print out / tally of the cost of a few procedures like you might get on a bill from the garage.

Might help some people to focus on what resources they are using and/or help people to decide whether or not they were actually getting value out of the NHS.

Privatise it! That’s proved the solution to the problems of every public service. I mean…. just look at the railways

They need to get a company like Southern Cross involved. They can show those public sector dullards how to do care and make a profit at the same time.

I like him.

Thought he was a bit of an ar$e at first, but he is actually quite savvy, especially about media/cultural stuff.

Couldn’t stand Simon Mayo when he was on Radio 1, but find him quite amusing now he can be “himself” on R5L

Similar story with Eddie Mair, and back in the good old days of Talk Radio, Tommy Boyd and Anna Rayburn – all acquired tastes (please excuse possible spelling issues).

Ah well, in the fullness of time your savings and pension will be worth sod all and you’ll come round to my way of thinking.

brooess

but ignored the risks of getting it wrong.

actually, this should be “but didn’t face the risks of getting it wrong.”

I would prefer to conclude that on the whole the system is morally agnostic.

This is where we fundamentally disagree.

I think that “the whole system” is largely governed by the already wealthy for the benefit of the already wealthy.

My allegations about deregulation and derivatives are largely the same – that they have both been allowed to get out of hand.

I didn’t say that all derivatives should be banned. I can see the benefit in advancing money against the next wheat crop. But derivatives that really are nothing more than a means to deceive by hiding the true value of assets simply shouldn’t be allowed.

+ I thought it was deregulation in the early 80’s that allowed the subprime market to take off?

ransos – actually the Australians started PFI. The Tories expropriated it, but the Labour government deployed it in another order of magnitude completely.

Slightly OT, but can’t help but think of the analogy (in reverse) of the move to academies in schools.

But the original securitisation structure was what enabled issuers to brand junk loans as AAA

Which was still a consequence of de-regulation anyway. Which is really my main point – that de-regulation can have bad side effects.

Personally I think that the trade off of efficiency (de-regulation) for stability (regulation) is worth making for overall fairness/happiness/contentment (or whatever wooly metric you’d like to use)

Wouldn’t you say it was the creation of derivatives that allowed the institutions that created the securities to pass the bomb?

If the institutions that issued the mortgages had known that they would have to keep hold of them, or at the very least make it transparent what they were selling on, then we would never have had the huge bubble that eventually popped?

Surely it was the creation of the derivatives that allowed that market to grow?

What are you talking about re regulation?

Capital controls – taking the power to create money back from private banks to the state.

Preventing individual financial institutions from becoming “too big to fail”.

Limits on the creation of some of the more ridiculous derivatives. (clearly, left to their own devices, financial institutions are not capable of doing this by themselves – it was the US subprime crisis that kicked the current debt crisis off)

Limits on short selling (because it seems clear that the level of abuse of this is greater than any benefit).

Taxing financial transactions in order to swing the balance back towards investing rather than trading.

etc etc.

And therefore most of our hard work for the next generation (essentially the rest of my life given I’m nearly 40) will go towards paying off that debt and on its associated interest, rather than investing it in schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc, all the things that make our lives and our kids’ lives better.

Not quite.

The vast elephant in the room, that politicians and economists never bother to explain to the general public, is that our economic system can only work with a large amount of debt in it. One man’s debt is another man’s asset. Under our current system, building “all the things that make our lives better” will always require debt to be created in order to do it. The problems arise when the private sector is allowed to buy, sell and swap those debts, effectively adding to them every time they do it.

But the justification that the Tories keep trotting out for what they are doing is that if we don’t we will lose our credit rating and no one will want to invest in the UK, but what they want to do is to continue to let the markets run in a totally unregulated way and just hope that we can make ourselves an attractive victim to keep the markets interested in us.

What they could do instead is to try and reintroduce some regulation that would put a brake on the mad financial system that led to the debt crisis in the first place.

Crap as Gordon Brown might have been domestically, one does have to admit that he seemed to have the confidence of other world leaders when it came to tackling the global debt crisis and he was able to sort out an international response to it.

Alas the same can’t be said about George Osborne.

Have you spoken to the police again?

Surely, if they arrested him earlier they know where he lives and could do him for threatening behaviour?

Do you have witnesses to the escalation?

I’ve more than a casual interest as I do in fact live in Wareham and have had cause to get the police involved in sorting out some anti-social behaviour in our street.

Not what you expect in Swanage

More like Wareham.

Was there some mental health / substance abuse angle?

Oh, and going back and editing posts to make them sound more reasonable AFTER someone has responded to them is considered unethical in some quarters.

Hang on.

You wrote this:

Secular morality doesn’t concern itself with ethical non issues such as — what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with.

But now you tell me that your point was that:

Of course those things have ethical ‘dimensions’. That wasn’t my point – which was they you don’t need religious texts to tell you how to handle them.

So I was supposed to see that your point was the exact opposite of what you wrote was I?

Just a short apology will do.

And why are you asking me to read the bible BTW after just rubbishing Christianity?

Ah I see… your point was something different to what you actually wrote.

deluded,

I’ll go slower then.

You said:

Secular morality doesn’t concern itself with ethical non issues such as — what we eat, read or wear, when we work, or whom we have sex with.

I was trying to point out that all of those things do have an ethical dimension, whether or not you are religious.

Because they’re the ONES who always resort to RANDOM capital LETTERS in order to prove A point.

If I weren’t an ATHIEST I’d have to agree with you.

deluded,

It really makes me laugh the way you and many others on here on similar threads go to such lengths to make yourselves sound ever so reasonable, but just end up sounding so sodding self righteous.

If you are hoping that your child might grow up “free of uncritical beliefs” it sounds like you are planning on being an integral part of The Second Coming yourself. Get real.

You say that what we eat, what we read, what we wear and whom we have sex with are ETHICAL NON-ISSUES ?!?!?

Are you currently eating a bluefin tuna sandwich whilst sporting a pair of mink pants knocked up in a Bangladeshi sweatshop whilst “reading” the terrorist handbook or a porn mag? (I’ll refrain from speculating on your sex life) – no ethical issues there eh?

And why the need to try to belittle the genuinely held beliefs of Christians by refering to God as a “sky fairy” – is that a part of YOUR superior ethical code?

They also know Christians are stupid

What are Jews like?