I always love how angry they sound. Like they get bogged down a bit half way up, then have a freak-out, total meltdown spaz fest.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play mma es Jack a dull boy.
v All work and no PLay makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no ply maKes Jack a dullboy.
All work and no pllay makes Jaca dyll boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and No play makes Jacka dull boy.
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no plaay makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull bog.
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull bot.
All work and noplay makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play maKES Jack a dyll boy.

I think Bill's attack on the science/health experts is misguided.

Not that Bill's wrong, mind you. IF you have a good internal (immune) system you'll have a better chance of fighting it off, but

1) that's NOT a guarantee you won't get sick.
2) DOESN'T mean you won't help spread it by being all gun-ho about it, and
3) USA being what it is -- the number of over-weight, obese are just staggering -- what's the point for the health experts to say/shame people with, er, "their pre-conditions" are to blame NOW? How's that gonna help?

Besides, the health experts have been promoting healthy, active living for ages. They're not "cowards" because the people don't listen to them.

It's mind-bogging to me how narcissistic and self-centered American society is. If people just pay any attention outside of American media, they should know how to handle Covid-19.

Upvoted for "bog roll"

On one hand it does perhaps lack imagination, but on the other it makes perfect sense that aliens we first find would be much like us since they'd be attracted by our radio waves, and to become a space traveling civilisation they'd likely have similar motivations and their brains/reasoning capabilities would have evolved in a similar way. Afterall the human brain seems to be hardwired to find other humans - we see faces in the clouds and random floor patterns etc.

That new movie Arrival (2016) (not the Charlie Sheen 90s one) did a great job of unique aliens.

I guess another reason why fiction makes aliens like us is so that it allows a story to be told without the story getting bogged down on the details (unless that is the focus of the story).

I would have just driven off into the bog and seen if the blowhard could follow in his widdle bone stock Expedition...

HA HA "Let's not get bogged down by the -DETAILS- tell me why you object to socialism". Yeah, totally not transparent!

I've always loved the fast and little fart sounds when Ambrosius crosses the bog stones.

If you're in the mood for some economic common sense, Michal Kalecki's insightful paper on the political aspects of full employment (what would it take, what stands in opposition) is always worth a few minutes.

That's MMT/post-Keynesian economics, published in 1943. The fact that it took close to seven decades before the likes of Adair Turner pushed this back into the mainstream makes me want to sent whole economics departments at universities into the bogs to cut peat with nothing but a spade.

Yeah, passable but not great series from what I remember (been probably 15-20 years since I read it). Kind of surprised to see it chosen for a TV series.

I also seem to recall it took a while for the series to really reveal the "it's actually in the far future on Earth even though it's a magical fantasy setting" bit, maybe towards the end of the first book at least, where it's immediately obvious from this teaser. That is one of the few things the series had going for it though, mostly it was pretty bog-standard fare. Again though, been quite a while since I read it.

Rumour is that MS's W10 browser will support Chrome extensions. Somehow.

I'm somewhat curious. I'm falling out of favour with Chrome, it gets bogged down and chuggs badly on mobile CPUs when you use font scaling. Also Google's application design is increasingly becoming restrictive and frustrating. Why is there no way to turn off auto-update? Why is the interface locked from modification and I'm forced to squint painfully at the address bar on my 1920x1080p 13 inch laptop?

Firefox has terrible font rendering and I haven't been able to improve it. I originally moved over from it because it seemed to have memory issues where over time videos would randomly freeze for like half a second during play intermittently, dunno if they fixed it.

Opera seems better in these regards but I can't for the life of me get used to browsing without alt + # for switching between tabs.

Meanwhile IE 11 handles font scaling well and memory wise seems fine, but also lacks basic extensions at the moment. If they fix this issue I may switch over at least on my laptop.

As a young newt, I spent many a day hunting dragonflies down at the creek and in the bogs. I've always found them fascinating, and still think their wings are some of the most beautiful structures in nature. (and they're crunchy too, yum!)

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.