Walsingham

There's only one brother/sister hookup (IIRC, with on-screen characters anyway). Viserys is just slightly nutty, and likes to abuse Daenerys. But no sex there, just nipple-pinching. Hold the line, Mr Brown.

That Victoria Stilwell show right? I saw that one. The couple had a kid the dog was terrorizing as well if I remember right. I found it amusing too that they would turn to her for help. I guess chaos was too much even for them! Yeah. I didn't bring up the issue with the kid, because that makes it sound as if the couple were letting their child suffer in order to indulge their politics. Which I think might be assuming a bit much, given the show's heavily edited. And a tortured child isn't funny.

I could probably use you expanding each of those points. But let's try and see if my response makes any sense, to save you some time. It seems to me that your own standpoint is in danger of insisting that the application always reflect the principle. Or as you suggest it is self-referential. The certain failing of this is that one can only aspire to what one can currently achieve. In fact it goes further because it argues we can only intend what we will always be able to deliver. With the result that we will fail to act when we actually can, where the principle may be sound, simply so that we don't fail to act when the principle is still sound but the means unavailable. That may sound very satisfactory to a philosopher, but it does not satisfy me. There's probably a much clearer way of putting that, but since I'm not sure of your point in the first place I'll leave it there for now.

Hey, I only just thought of this. It's not like I'm plotting to implement it! Yet. Ok, I can see that assuming anyone who doesn't vote at present is supporting the status quo would be utter balls. But if they KNEW that was how it would be taken then I don't see why not. Surely it would serve to rile up anyone opposed to the status quo and make them get up and do something about it. Would it be possible to have a 'things are all wrong' vote, followed by a second round of voting if the incumbent is turfed out?

It's the moustache. That's... not my nose.

That surprised cat reminds me of this TV show I saw last night about this couple of anarchists with a dog. The dog was - not inconsistently - totally undisciplined. The dog's name was 'Chaos'. This lack of discipline meant the couple were prisoners in their own bedroom. I laughed and laughed. Talk about being hoist by your own pet.

Never ceases to amuse me when people think I'm a retired officer. Although it can be rather sticky if - as today - somebody refers to you as such five times in twenty minutes. I never know whether to let it slide past and hope they only say it once, or stop them and point out I was only a private with very precise diction.

I've nailed my colours to the masthead of not enforcing the unenforceable. However, I don't see what's unenforceable. We will know what their membership is. They either undergo an audit, or we quit listening to them. Seems perfectly enforceable to me.

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply you were being condescending. It's a turn of phrase I'm used to, and it merely admits what it says - I was feeling a bit thick. So, back to your point. You are saying that information technology is an enabler for a police state. Which is clearly the case. You can't have any control system without information - thermostat to supercomputer. The control has to know the identity and condition of its controlled elements. Of course, a control system is also a beneficial thing. it regulates and protects its elements provided they are within designated parameters. It all comes down to what we expect these systems to define as the key parameters.

Any record of some kind. Fastest mile run, honesty, etc.

I've read through the last few pages, and am still enjoying things. Two points: voter apathy and believing people choose/ yet they have no idea. I think I can square the circle here. What if we accept that people don't vote FOR things, they ONLY vote AGAINST things? - Voter apathy is a tacit admission that things aren't so bad that they warrant taking twenty minutes out of one day every four years to fix. Or slightly less time than it takes to cook a dish of pasta. Voter apathy isn't therefore bad, but a product of things being OK. - AV is simply a way of saying you're upset more strongly. Because you allow your vote to go to any bastard but the frontrunner.

I'm just saying that if it's unnaceptable for our elected representatives to unfairly claim benefits, then why not apply the rule equally to self-appointed representatives?

Thanks for a moderate and reasonable first response! Having worked on a local campaign for a friend, I confirm your point about people voting for NOT something. This would seem to be the opposite of the notion that one votes FOR something. And hence the whole point about a democratic mandate for action. Two rejoinders to this: 1. I'd put

What's not to lik about auto-updates? Unless the update is rubbish. Oh, OK, I get it.

For those who don't know, the UK is about to vote on May 5th as to whether to change its system of voting to 'Alternative Voting'. Where you rank order your preferences. I thought it was, you know, worth having a thread about a massive upheaval to the constitution of the World's longest running democracy*. ~~ Labour, of course, are as usual quite prepared to f*** the country if it scores them a small tactical advantage. Vote no, just to annoy Cameron! ~~ My own view, which I welcome challenging on, is that AV rewards indecisive people who know nothing about politics. I don't think we should listen MORE to those people. I think politics should be about making concrete decisions, because government is about concrete decisions. *If I'm wrong on this please post in new thread.

There's been a lot of material in the news recently about group UK Uncut. In a nutshell this group argue that big corporations don't pay enough tax. And there are enough people debating this already so let's not worry about that. UK Uncut are concerned that government needs money to do things like educate children, and care for the sick. No objections from me here. My notion, however, has been to observe that a lot of people adhering to UK Uncut are the far from mythical dole scrounger. People from privileged backgrounds - by which I mean nothing whatesoever wrong with them - who choose to pursue an alternative lifestyle in urban areas, enjoying both dole and all the manifold public amenities without either paying any tax OR generating wealth by any other means. I propose that UK Uncut be required to undergo a thorough independent audit of all their members to confirm that they take no more than 10% more money from the State than they are due, and pay no less than 10% less tax than they should. This isn't just sauce for a gander, this is...

Would you mind explaining this point to us thickies?

I am not riding some hellish camel-lich around the world. For starters I can only get down with assistance or by falling off. By consequence I would be unwillingly conveyed from atrocity to atrocity, a very squeaky and malodorous witness. Paladins would certainly assume my complicity, and I would end my days being pursued up a burning tower by great bearded human thugs waving improbably large swords, just because YOU WON'T GET YOUR ARSE IN GEAR AND START THE CAMPAIGN!

I'm a little confused, so I'll try to be clear, and you can set me straight easier: 1. I approve of a humanitarian cause for war. 2. I regard a purely humanitarian cause as insufficient to see a war to a successful conclusion. 3. Please explain why justice must be universal, and give an example of it. If there is no example then I suggest your definition is a fantasy and pursuit of it as much use in practical affairs as a pursuit of klingons.

US has Silicon Valley, MIT, Harvard etc. yeah this is why NASA is buying Russian rocket engines made in 60's, being unable to even copy 50 years old technology. Assuming they are, this would be something called capitalism. You may have heard of it.

Ros, with respect for your usual intelligence, your analysis is pure balls. Parallels between pirate attacks and naxalites? The failure to interdict in blue water has everything to do with weak RoE and huge expanses of ocean, not the pirates dressing up as tuna to blend in or the security forces being tactically inferior. Nor can I accept any notion of the 'causes' being addressed by a political developmental process as I guess you advocate. The program explicitly deals with this and I am a little alarmed that you missed the point. Attacks may have been precipitated by disorganised locals in response to abuse by merchant ships. But the phenomenon has changed entirely as the ransoms and scale of piracy have exploded. The 'cause' at present is cash payouts of hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not a question of giving them fresh water and schools any more, if it ever was. I can't accept the notion of a maritime cordon either. With each piratical operation netting millions there is really no reason at all why a gang should not travel overland to a nighbouring state, embark in a ship there, and commence to return only once aboard a hijacked vessel. The solution must be multi-layered and incorporate elements of each solution suggested so far. The phenomenon at sea sust be attacked vigorously and with the full weight of established law, not with one eye on the newspapers, and invokiing the full weight of the harm done to the global economy and the environment by these attacks. This must be coupled with attempts to identify and punish the sophistictaed international groups who are obviously laundering the money. And at the same time physical attacks on the pirate bases must kill sufficient numbers and key individual pirates to send an organisational and psychological shock through them.

I don't know why, but I read this with a slightly threatening tone. But yes, it would make sense. It's just because I'm built like an attack hamster.

My experience of big companies is not that the yare evil, but there is a general acquisitive lean towards getting as much of everything as possible. No one person is saying "let's be over greedy megalomaniacal bastards" but the decision making architecture ensures it happens. This is obviously a pretty mild thing. But unless you smack them on the snout for it now, the lean will just continue.

Again I'd like to remind listeners that obyknven is LoF wearing a t**s disguise.

I've only read The Handmaid's Tale, and that was awesome. I'm assuming you've read other books of hers though. No, I've actually only just heard of her, although I did hear that The Year Of The Flood was a sort of 'unofficial' sequel to The Handmaid's Tale. No one I know have read any of her books, so I thought I would get the low-down here before spending my mulahs. Then wouldn't it make sense to read the first one, which I can attest to being great? Handmaid's Tale. Although I don't recommend it for a laugh. It's a pretty depressing book, with some neat sci-fi thrown in.