JackC

Not necessarly. Square circles cannot exist by definition. Married bachelors cannot exist by definition. Onimax entities are similarly illogical.

You don't fancy actually peddling the thing then?

I wave off when leaving the pub, does that count?

Engineer. And tea comes in mugs.

British Standard Industrial Strength Tea. Accept no substitue.

The factors you mention that you can't do much about (like genetics or talent) do matter a lot and all you can do is make the most of what you've got. But things like social group are well within your power to affect. Even luck can be engineered to some degree by stacking the cards in your favour. All things being equal, the person who puts themselves voluntarily into positions where they have a chance to succeed will do better than those who sit on their ass and dream. Do I really need evidence to prove this to you? What is bullshit is the idea that you can merely think yourself rich, famous, good looking and hey presto, you win the lottery, get that recording contract and marry a supermodel. In short, the only "secret" about this film is that people really are gullible enough to pay cash money for it. But then human stupidity is no secret either.

This "secret" sound like neuro-linguistic programming wrapped up in some fancy bullshit if you ask me. It has some merits but there's no hocus pocus going on and it only works for things that are in your control anyway. The thinking is simple, people who want to be successful at something tend to put themselves in positions that enhances their potential to be successful. For example, people who want to be good skydivers tend to hang out with and learn from other good skydivers, they think and read about skydiving alot and spend as much time as they can skydiving. Same with playing tennis, building a business empire or any other skill. It's amazing how many actors and musicians turn out to have been on TV as a child or have links to the industry in some other way before they got famous. That may be by virtue of birth or just good fortune, but if you could engineer those links artificially, you'd be good to go. In essence you look at people who are successful, analyse how they got where they are and what makes them good and then emulate. It's no secret.

Personally I'm dead against them. The last thing we need is another toe-rag reality TV show. As far as shooting them goes, you'd do better with one of these

Proof, if ever it was needed, that the planet is well and truly fucked.

He'd have to pull something seriously spectacular out the bag. People aren't fooled by his economic record any more. I think it's more likely he'll spin it out till the very last moment to call an election because he knows he stands no chance of getting elected on his own merits.

That high? You're an optimist. I can tell.

Technically that's true but people do vote based on who is likely to be the next prime minister. In situations like this where the new PM gets "coronated", many voters feel cheated and rightly so. The honourable thing would be for Gordon Brown to call a general election. What are the chances of that?

I must admit, I do find a certain irony in the act of chopping down a load of trees to build a useless object because they're upset about man's impact on the environment.

Yes, it is a little known fact that despite his bizarre hat fetish, the Purple Plonker ain't a bad noodler.

Nope. When someone says ukelele I usually think of this guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxWK9keh3XI Edit: the Ukes of Hazzard... wtf?

Holy crow

I don't doubt that. I just wish the arrogant knob would have listened a bit more to those that were telling him otherwise.

Robert Higgs (the quoted author) does make some valid points in his complete article but he also misses a few that a man in his position probably shouldn't. Just like democracy, peer review isn't perfect but it is the best system we have. In order to get your research published in a reputable journal, it has to be sent out to peer review. That means that two (or more) experts in the field scrutinize your work checking it for factual errors, inconsitencies and general quality etc. Only if it passes will it get published. That stops complete trash making it into what is collectively known as "the literature". Now if a paper does slip through this part, as happens from time to time, there are a whole raft of researchers who are waiting to jump on it and publish their own corrections. Peer review doesn't just stop at publication. There is a constant debate going back and forth on the relative merits of any research. Only when it has been debated up, down, backwards, forwards and every-which-way possible and still stands up does it get the honour of being called a consensus. Even then peer review is not finished. Both quantum theory and general relativity have stood for nearly 100 years but it is known that the two theories are incompatible. In other words, we know that at least one of them is either incomplete or just plain wrong. For the last 100 years, peer review has been trying to find out why. Peer review is much more that Higgs has acknowledged it to be and although it does have it's problems, it is still by far the best process we have. It takes time and had work to get to the right answer, lots of it, that is a point that is often overlooked. Now the linked article is an opinion piece, nothing more. Noel Sheppard's (the blog author) use of emphasis to selectively press home his own bias is the mark of shoddy, dishonest journalism. Forget the hyped up blog article and read the article it (mis)quotes, you'll get much more value out of it.

Smashin'. Now if only Brown would get retired off with a nasty case of bronchial heamorhoids...

They're right, the last thing this planet needs is more people. Having a large family is just plain irresponsible and selfish. http://mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm

Of course if you're going with the "we can't understand god and he isn't subject to the laws of logic and physics" argument then a state of ignorant agnosticism is all we can ever achieve and that's fair enough. But as soon as you start doing a bit of defining what god is or isn't, which nearly all religions do, then those claims are open to scrutinty. If page one of scripture X says god is green and hairy and page 54 says god is red and bald, then it's open season.

I have to go now. teh short bus has arived to take me back to teh care home.

So? If there are 52 futures, 40 thousand futures or an infinite number of futures, and god still knows them all he still doesn't know anything useful unless he can point to the one that comes to pass.

I give you a deck of 52 playing cards and ask you to pick one. I know all possible futures of this event. Is knowing all 53 possible futures any different from not knowing the future at all?

So how do you know what event is the result of genuine free will and what event is the result of god's intervention (therefore negating free will)? Unless you have a god-o-meter that detects devine intervention, you don't. The argument that god knows all possible futures doesn't work to well either. Unless he knows which of those possible futures will actually happen, he is in the equivalent position of not knowing the future at all. If god does know which of those possible futures will happen, then free will is out the window. Either way, a god that involves himself with the afairs of humans means trouble for the free will argument.