Huguenot

Well, there's nothing particularly 'flash' about it if there's no spontaneity. Isn't it just an old-fashioned protest? Used to have groups of people who did that at uni. Every Saturday. There was always something to protest about. I don't think they really cared what it was about, so long as they were protesting it. So if indeed 'flashmob' is a just rebranding of protest, isn't it kind of weird that these down-to-earth protesters would engage in such marketing gimmickry as choosing a trendy right-on name? You'd have thought that protesters hated marketers. On the wikipedia page someone suggests that 'flashmob' can't be applied to publicity stunts. Which is daft. A flashmob is a publicity stunt. With added blitzkrieg and shock & awe. So very very american. There's something particularly disingenuous in concept about a protester with righteous indignation employing such underhand modern marketing tactics and then denying it. It makes the whole crowd seem like liars. And then of course, if the group accusing Trafigura of covering up the truth are actually covering up the truth themselves...

Well, there's nothing particularly 'flash' about it if there's no spontaneity. Isn't it just an old-fashioned protest? Used to have groups of people who did that at uni. Every Saturday. There was always something to protest about. I don't think they really cared what it was about, so long as they were protesting it. So if indeed 'flashmob' is a just rebranding of protest, isn't it kind of weird that these down-to-earth protesters would engage in such marketing gimmickry as choosing a trendy right-on name? You'd have thought that protesters hated marketers. On the wikipedia page someone suggests that 'flashmob' can't be applied to publicity stunts. Which is daft. A flashmob is a publicity stunt. With added blitzkrieg and shock & awe. So very very american. There's something particularly disingenuous in concept about a protester with righteous indignation employing such underhand modern marketing tactics and then denying it. It makes the whole crowd seem like liars. And then of course, if the group accusing Trafigura of covering up the truth are actually covering up the truth themselves...

Bee pimping. Excellent.

Bee pimping. Excellent.

Can it be a flashmob if it's planned?

That's a secret.

A masonic handshake communicates your status in the organisation through the position of the thumb. If you're not a mason you wouldn't notice. ;-)

Well there you go silverfox, now you're using the term embryo (which is accurate) and not foetus, which is a state of mammalian development. Foetus can be arguably 'human' whereas embryos cannot. I'm disappointed by your casual interchange of the words given the massive moral implications. That's not an "attack". Those are much worse. No need to go all Sarah Palin and claim oppression. I'm a big fan of robots. Asimov explored a strategy based on the 'three laws': 1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law However, whilst these worked on a story-telling level, they became cumbersome when he reviewed robot interaction with human conflict - who to prevent from 'coming to harm' first? The 'zeroth' law (taking a priority over the first) was created in later stories to accommodate this. It esentially gave 'humanity' priority over a single human. 0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. But that,of course, is quite a judgement call. A robot could, for example, share the views of some on this forum that humanity needs to be reduced from an unworkable 7 billion, to a more practical 2 billion. Dirty stuff. On another note, I'm an adherent of Turing: at the point that something becomes indistinguishable from a human, it is to all intents and purposes human. For example, you could all be a figment of my imagination. A fair argument. But since you can't be distinguished from other 'humans' like myself, it's only practical that I treat you as if you are, with all the responsibilities that entails. Sociopaths often struggle with that leap.

"...and stem cell research using aborted foetuses" That's the kind of unnecessary casual aboslute w*nk that removes reasonable people from public debate. This is about robots, but you need to have an agenda. Gah. Back on robots, what do we think of Asimov's laws, and, of course, the zeroth.

I'm converted. A trouser press therapist told me you can't develop trousers or presses without being exposed to sophisticated forms of trouser press. I tend to do it with most things I don't understand. Ice Cream, Internal Combustion. It's convenient.

"they apparently kill women for adultry" "apologies for the rant but at least I put it through the spell checker ;)" no you didn't... ;-) Punishment as deterrent can only conceivably work if the crime is rational and calculated. There's a crime graph out there that has crime on the 'x' axis and punishment on the 'y'. It goes crime crime, punish punish and under the graph is deterrent deterrent. When crime pushes into the way f*cking mental zone all other elements fall by the wayside. I'm surprised that people can argue that punishment is a deterrent, as in this case it clearly has not been! This case proves that it is not a deterrent! Besides, some people are just too bloody stupid to think beyond the next five minutes. Most criminals fall into this category. 'Punishment' is some vacuous concept that isn't happening to them right now, so it doesn't count. We all do it with fags and booze.

39, seeing 40 like a wall, and time like a Kawasaki with a papier mach? crumple-zone.

Was that a flame from computedshorty? :)) Well I never!

Yep, I saw that as well - what was it all about? There's the 'supply line' graph that shows where supplies will come from over the next few years, but it's really disturbing that the 'oil we know about' is kind of over in the next 10-20 years. This article yes? The entire energy policy seems to be based on oil that we might have found that hasn't actually been developed, so no-one's sure, and oil that hasn't been found yet. Talk about 'I'm mortgaging the house to buy a Porsche because I might have a good job one day'.

Never heard it out here - maybe it's the 'Commitments' effect?

:)) It's Kurtz. Round every bend. Kurtz. Such darkness in the hearts of civilized people....

HAL9000, I haven't addressed you, and I'm not discussing your comments. I've asked you politely before to stop making personal comments about me but that's two on the trot. What possesses you to be nasty about Mockney, who has only a good word for everyone, only you can know. If you want to discuss Gordon's letter, or it's links to financial mismanagement in the Labour party them I'm quite happy to.

I merely pointed out that amongst the failures you laid at Gordon's door were his disability, and that the accusations of embezzlement were hypocritical. If you didn't intend it to come across as a more comprehensive attack on the Labour government the I don't know why you pursued issues relating to financial misconduct at PPP suppliers (nothing to do with letters or casualties). I strongly [sic] suggest you consider Cash for Questions, Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer and Michael Ashcroft when you discuss financial misconduct. The conservative party didn't even have the excuse that they were suppliers. They were up there at the top. If you don't want to talk about macro financial issues such as PPP because you only want to refer to military spending you'll remember that 20% of British casualties in the first gulf war (under the tories) were blue-on-blue: the government was comprehensively trashed for not paying for electronic IFF (friend or foe) systems in British kit. This time it's helicopters and next time it'll be something else. It really makes no difference what the government is. But then after John Major combining Back to Basics with Edwina's charms, hypocrisy amongst the Tory supporters should come as no surprise.

"It is curious that David Miliband should find it preferable to be the leader of the opposition of a glorified county council than to be the leading proconsul of an imperial power: he seems not to have accurately appraised the full reach of the superstate created by the Treaty of Lisbon." I think that's where the Tories have got it wrong - the UK is no longer an imperial power, and no longer has sufficient gravitas to consider its foreign secreataries to be Roman proconsuls on a world stage that they control. It's just a dangerous delusion for which, as with all such hubris, there'll be an extremely unpleasant reckoning. An influential role in a European superstate offers exactly the amount of influence required to defend Britain's interests.

I don't think I suggested it was a figment of anyone's imagination did I? There are certainly those who think it's the end of the world, and plenty who don't - or at least plenty who suggest that throwing money at the problem won't necessarily help. Like we read, the beekeepers only asked for 8m in the first place, and it seems the initial 2m has been granted, with more available if it should prove beneficial. What's to complain? I can't work out your point on big Pharma - were you implying that they swindled the public? At the same time you also seem to be asking for a remedy from them? It doesn't seem fair to slap them and then beg them to save you? I didn't understand what you meant about the BBKA walking away from a project because they don't like the Welsh? I don't see how stress from agri business could only happen in one year? Sounds like another opportunity to take a potshot.

I think the poor guys simply got a fixed contract from a marketing department, I don't think he's making a social statement!

Okay, I can't be reasonable for ever... "The money wasted and imbezzeled at all levels has been astonishing. And all under the watch of the one failing-eyed man whom others would have us believe has been our financial guardian." What? "the one failing-eyed man" What? That's effing outrageous, you paint his handicap as a character flaw. I'm shocked. Is that the Tories for you? Maybe we should put that up on Central Office.... "Vote tory, we hate disabled people but we can't spell". That's the problem with conservatism isn't it? Not particularly clever, and deeply unpleasant. As for embezzelment, are you really, really trying to suggest that the Labour government is Idi Amin? Sir Peter Viggers was conservative.

I appreciate I went beyond the pale recently, and let a number of people down, exposing them to criticisms they didn't deserve. I was both short-tempered and foolish. I was also foul-mouthed, which isn't really acceptable. I'd like to apologise particularly to TLS and to Quids. TLS for allowing my irritation to sway my judgement, and to Quids for being a pompous ass. I'm not sure whether it's good form to edit, but I'll go back and do it. I hope that for those that will see it for what I hope to achieve, that you won't chastise me for the effort.

Daizie, here's Tony explaining that he will make residential decisions not based on crime figures, but based on racial profiling. If you make decisions based on assumptions you make about someone because of their race, that's racism.

Daizie, here's Tony explaining that he will make residential decisions not based on crime figures, but based on racial profiling. If you make decisions based on assumptions you make about someone because of their race, that's racism.