just to put it to rest for the benefit of the non-Brits here, sirex is right - it's 'i'll stick with a four'. which is a lousy score, but i don't blame him in the circumstances.

Also for the benefit of non-Brits, this is a show that airs just before tea-time on weekdays, and is watched by everyone from kids just back from school to retirees.

Quite an old one though, this - Richard 'Twice Nightly' Whiteley has been six feet under for yonks.

MG, that's my point exactly - if it has those applications, invest in those applications.

Technology doesn't care about ethics. It will get developed anyway, regardless of its intended use. As a society, we *should* care about ethics, and allocate resources accordingly.

You want better launch systems, communication networks, medecines? Fine. Invest in science, and science education. Don't invest in weapons on the basis that they may one day have a peaceful use and then pretend that all the death and pain was worth it. That's bass ackwards.

'Soft targets'. Yup, human beings are pretty soft in this context. Especially the ones we don't like.

I suppose instant death from a mach 8 projectile is preferable to dying slowly from shrapnel wounds or third-degree burns, let alone NBC effects.

cybrbeast - what a compelling argument! We should develop more and more ingenious ways to kill people on the offchance that one day they'll have a non-violent use. Maybe you were playing devil's advocate, but of all the dumb, cliched arguments in favour of war, that's one of the worst.

cool video, but when will people learn to leave Moby in the 90s where he belongs? I cringe every time I hear that bloody song.

jdlongmire -

actually, sod it. i was going to explain why you're wrong and why natural selection happens ALL THE TIME but I just can't be arsed. There's no reasoning with you lot, so I won't waste the effort.

I for one...

nah, I couldn't bring myself to say it.

Who said video killed the radio star?

You can tell they've had this conversation a million times before and are both utterly exasperated with each other's positions.

i love the dutch

quality! love the way the two anchors act like it was completely normal.

arvana - no he hasn't, i just checked. hopefully he will soon though, so he can explain all this stuff in terms that i can understand!

qruel - yeah, i know... but part of me is hoping that at least SOME of the candidates only *pretend* to be believers since to do otherwise is electoral suicide (what is this, the 16th century?). Ron Paul is going a step further (granted, he's not alone) by indicating through his policies that he really DOES believe and that he's prepared to let his beliefs dictate the decisions he would make as president.

(But then he has the cowardice to suggest that his stance on abortion is somehow based on facts to which non-doctors/historians/economists/politicians aren't privy.)

well THAT was eye-opening. I know a lot more about his beliefs and policies than I did before... starting to understand why he's a fringe candidate even though he makes it to the front page of Digg every day. I wonder how many people are rooting for Ron because they only know about a small subset of his policies? Or maybe it's just a reaction to the atrophied state of American politics.

"Let me assure you as an OB doctor, and as one that has studied history, and economic policy and politics for a long time, I can assure you that life begins at conception."

WTF? What a complete non sequitur, and a despicable attempt to convince his audience that his theological views have a rational basis. (There is no basis for choosing conception as 'the moment life begins' other than a theological basis, and any philosophy undergraduate will gladly explain that there is no such thing as 'the moment at which life begins'... but I digress.)

The last thing the world needs is another religious nutbag for President of the US.

And yet... he's still the only sane choice for Republican candidate. What a sorry state of affairs.

Judy is a silly cow, she really is. Sinfully ugly as well. The Richard But Not Judy show might actually be worth watching.

Much as I admire Dawkins, I do worry that he's the wrong weapon to use in the War On Stupidity. People - especially the people who need to listen to him the most - seem to find the archetypal Oxford don persona patronising and arrogant. No one likes it when beliefs that they rely on for emotional support are demonstrated to be false.

Ah well, so much for the Enlightenment.

If only his films were still as good as his public speaking. Clerks 2 made me sad - I couldn't believe how far he'd fallen from the original.

Kinda funny when he basically made a career out of watching George Lucas do the same thing, though.

we're all doomed

sheesh, can't believe I read all that. Interesting stuff. Thanks for sticking around and piling on the evidence, drattus. You too, yaroslavvb, even if most of your arguments have received a sound bashing.

I'm surprised the most important point has barely been touched on though - people in a free society can do whatever the damn hell they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If that's not the case, your society is not free. THAT should be the over-riding consideration - the reduced prison population/fewer medical problems/tax revenue/better use of law enforcement/yada yada are just bonuses.

I dread to imagine what kind of world you'd want to live in, yaroslavvb.

Fortunately, we seem to be on the right path - over here in the UK we've just had half a dozen Cabinet ministers tripping over each other to admit they took cannabis. It's not a career-ender any more - mainstream attitudes are changing. Long way to go, though.