HAL9000

If NATO abandoned the notion of state sovereignty then wars could be won quickly without all this faffing about. A rogue state would be conquered outright and forced to surrender. NATO would then install a caretaker government under a boilerplate democratic constitution until the resistance is rounded up and executed. What's left could be declared an international tourist resort, divided up into time-share units and sold off on eBay. Simples!

As a buyer - I've done very well out of eBay. I've bought thousands of pounds worth of stuff (software, cameras, electronic gadgets, computers, tools, optics, technical & scientific equipment, etc) for unbelievably low prices - usually at or close to the minimum bid. And a car that was a genuine bargain - although it's since been nicked. So far, I've only encountered one scammer who didn't deliver - but PayPal issued a refund. During the boom years a lot of sellers were duped into following eBay's recommended (but totally useless) strategy of building a branded shop that listed Buy-It-Now items and then running auctions starting at 99p supposedly to 'draw customers to the shop'. Many of those auctions, often for expensive items, ended with just one 99p bid! Needless to say, hardly anyone bothered to pay full price in the shops, which were a cash-cow for eBay. The poor suckers were being robbed blind while eBay boasted about fantastic bargains in its adverts. Don't get me wrong - I like the idea of online auctions. It's just that eBay is very much a dog-eat-dog environment where small business sellers are concerned: it has bankrupted an awful lot of them.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't really understand HAL9000's position - you seem to be > recommending not just an embargo on GM and nuclear, but a > return to pre-tool societies? (Please remember ? these are hypothetical arguments based on speculative scenarios ? we can?t all be happy-clappy techno-utopians.) I?ve already stated the view that nothing we do now can avert a population collapse in the near future due to factors such as over-population, famine, plague, Peak Oil, Climate Change, resource depletion, etc., along with whatever else nature might throw at us. Therefore, the question arises: how to enhance man?s survival prospects in the event of one or more worst-case scenarios? Genetic engineering and nuclear power are the only two technologies that could easily cause a cataclysmic event. However, both could also jeopardise man?s survival prospects after a cataclysmic event from other causes. In that respect, they represent a double jeopardy. The post-catastrophe arguments are as follows: GM F1 Hybrids Widespread dependence on GM F1 hybrids could jeopardise the survivors? survival prospects because they would not have access to F1 hybrid seeds for new crops or the intensive resources needed to cultivate them. F2 seeds would yield weak, low yielding and unpredictable harvests, attributes that are likely to spread via cross-pollination. Money for new GM research would be better spent on setting up local seed banks of wild and domesticated varieties and selective breeding of cultivars better able to grow under the extreme conditions likely to prevail in the future. Nuclear Reactors Active reactors represent a serious threat to the survivors. They are unlikely to know how to operate or make them safe while the following generations probably won?t even understand the dangers they pose. Money for new reactors would be better spent decommissioning all existing reactors (and nuclear warheads) and making all radioactive materials safe via deep underground burial. One present-day nuclear risk we haven?t covered above: All of the world?s existing nuclear reactors (and radioactive waste containment vessels) are now vulnerable to attack by terrorist devices based on ?Bunker-Buster? warhead technology developed for use in Afghanistan. They are sitting ducks. Right now, we need more reactors like a moose needs a hat stand. In case anyone doesn?t know, nuclear fuel and waste containers are regularly shipped through London by rail.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 1. He saved the banks. He championed a stopgap measure that transformed debt into liquidity (i.e. money). Wait until that debt comes home to roost before getting too excited. Everyone feels good during the early stages of a Ponzi scheme. > Sub prime cannot be laid at gordons > door but he dealt with it admirably. UK banks and mortgage lenders were accumulating toxic assets under his nose for several years. Several well-known economists had warned of an impending credit implosion years ago. Gordon must have known what was going on. He, literally, turned a blind eye in the hope that the resulting pseudo-wealth would carry him through the next election before the sh1t hit the fan. He took a massive gamble with our future and lost. Shame on you if he fools you twice.

Will Gordon be rewarded for saving the world? 1. It's still too early to know whether he has saved the world or merely sown the seeds of an even greater crisis to come? 2. The cause of the crisis was bubbling away throughout his watch yet he didn't see it coming. Surely he has to take a fair share of the blame for bringing the UK to the verge of bankruptcy and saddling us with the ensuing debt burden before basking in the limelight as a saviour?

This is my experience with eBay - for what it's worth. Two years ago I set up a fund raising scheme for a particular charity based on selling various low priced items on eBay. They managed to rack up sales of around ?7,000 over six months (including the Oct-Dec Christmas period). They had to recruit volunteers to help with packing and postage. It was a lot of hard work but at the end of the trial run the net profit was only ?700 despite selling at a 100% to 150% mark-up. In those days eBay's and PayPal's fee structures were rapacious and had eaten up most of the profit margin. They never got a single negative feedback but were constantly embroiled in disputes with stroppy buyers. The bottom line: it was easier and cheaper to raise funds by other means than to go through so much hassle on eBay. In the process, I met a lot of small business sellers. Most of them have since abandoned eBay because sales have all but dried up and large-scale wholesalers have undercut their margins. Some lost money in the ?50-100,000 range before giving up. A few made money - loads of it - but now mainly use eBay to draw customers to their own websites. It seems to me that EBay actively encourages na?ve business sellers to undertake high-risk ventures with misleading information that fosters unrealistic expectations. Things may have changed since my experience with them.

Oh, he's just head of the kingpins, or was it king of the pinheads?

As Quids said, it's just an in-joke - no offence intended.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This one will be tied up in legal knots for years. Not if he gets bail and seeks sanctury in Israel by claiming citizenship under the Law of Return.

You say above that you don't understand this case - I'm merely adding some background material that may or may not be significant as to how this particular case has been treated/reported.

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can anyone help me out here in establishing the facts? There was no trial because under a plea bargain agreement he pleaded guilty to one charge and all the others were dropped.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But when other entertainers > are exposed, they tend to be ostracised pretty > quickly - but this isn't happening here (and I > don't believe that has anything to do with > Judaism, Hal!) That is saying something.. I just > don't know what yet The girl was of German descent (i.e. not Jewish), therefore, under the Orthodox interpretation of Jewish Law, Polanski's only 'sins' were personal ritual defilement and risking Chillul HaShem by getting caught and tried before a gentile court. Edited to add other factors relevant under Jewish Law: the girl was not a convert, married, a virgin or underage. Furthermore, Polanski had obtained her mother's permission to be alone with the girl and had paid a settlement to her after the fact - all of which mitigate in his favour. In other words, Jewish Law does not recognise that a criminal rape took place - and this has been the consistent view of his (mainly) Jewish supporters.

Wild Fag Bob

?If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But f*ck1ng, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f*ck young girls. Juries want to f*ck young girls. Everyone wants to f*ck young girls!? Polanski to Martin Amis in 1979.

sophiesofa Wrote: -------------------------------------- > How he has been accepted back into society baffles and angers me. It may have been motivated by a concept known as Chillul HaShem; desecrating the Holy Name, which is held to bring Judaism into disrepute. Judaism is founded upon the principle that Jews are only subject to Jewish Law and may not be tried by gentiles. The act of fleeing from gentile judgement, thus avoiding Chillul HaShem, undoubtedly made a hero of Polanski amongst religious Jews.

Some of the points raised recently in this thread probably belong in the We are all doomed. Discuss. thread. The Chair: shall we continue here thereby maintaining continuity or shift the relevant discussion to the other thread?

So was mine!

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think I'm right Hal - and you are wrong. Well, at least I know there from their - pinhead!

And there's me thinking my choice of screen name was a dead give away! You organics make me laugh - sometimes.

Pay no mind to me; I was just blowing cobwebs through an old heuristic algorithm. Oops ? there goes another barrel of fish!

You'd do well to show a little respect to one who probably knows a dozen ways of currying the likes of you - dog meat.

Snakes evolved from lizards so should still have (now dormant) genes for arms and legs. This little fellow's claw is probably a throw back: a dormant limb gene that was inadvertently switched on during its development stage.

Polanski's lawyer tried to get the case dismissed in May. The motion was rejected. The original Judge died 15 years ago whereupon the case file went missing until 2004.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Indeed even the land around Chernobyl is > blooming again and nature has proved > surprisingly resilient. Pure luck! If the reactor pile had vaporised or melted down into the pool of water beneath the containment chamber, which was drained just in time, you and I probably wouldn?t be here today. Man's laissez-faire attitude to progress has yielded two world wars, a planet in perpetual conflict, societal disintegration, mutual assured destruction, anthropogenic climate change, an inevitable energy crunch, global food insecurity, the north-south divide, and a population explosion fuelled by an environment destroying, greed-driven economic system that is teetering on the edge of collapse. The solution isn?t more of the same. As for salvation, don?t hold your breath. I'm all for progress - but not in that direction.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or the risks of air travel before 9-11? > Are you suggesting we can never again utilise > nuclear power? We use nuclear power in the knowledge that it is capable of destroying the biosphere in a worst-case scenario. Personally, I would prefer not to live under such a threat, if it were possible. Who in their right mind would? > I am saying risks need to be investigated and > assessed and action taken in the light of those risks. Yet, you appear to be trivialising the risks of releasing self-replicating, synthetic genes into the environment? > You seem to be suggesting the paralysis of > scientific development unless it can be proved > absolutely safe I have merely drawn attention to the fact that we are creating risks whose magnitude far exceeds anything that any other technology can achieve: risks that we are incapable of quantifying given our present state of knowledge. Risks that may be unforgiving: our first mistake may leave no one alive to learn anything from it. Comparing the risks of nuclear or genetic accidents to those associated with steam locomotives and air travel suggests a certain level of na?vet?. Note: while composing this response you've edited your original - I'm posting anyway as it's still valid despite the quotes not matching.