Something needs to be said about this muslim woman, Aishah Azmi, who basically was told not to wear the niqab full veil in class in which she taught. Well, it transpires that common sense has prevailed and she lost the case on the major points although she was still awarded a grand for victimisation. That baffles me still but anyway...
It's hard to avoid saying the obvious stuff about this such as the fact that you are in our country, this behavior is extreme and unwarranted if if you feel so strongly about it that you are prepared to cut yourself off with your blatant demonstration of seperation, then why in shit don't you piss off to another country? Bizarrely I have to show some appreciation here with France's hard-line attitude on the issue. No religious symbols in school. At all. Ever. We're far too PC for that here, examples recently manifesting as politicians coming out with their absurd fawning PC shite denouncing Jack Straw's perfectly sensible comments. However if Aishah Azmi has achieved anything, it's by raising the awareness of her annoying give-an-inch-take-a-mile behavior, exploiting our willingness to pander to these people and causing us to re-evaluate our position.
Which is, of course, what the redtops have been doing in a tabloid feeding frenzy which really isn't helping matters. As I intimated, props to Jack Straw for his original and perfectly reasonable request and corresponding statement of fact, Eg. this stuff does not help the much vaunted integration into the community which we have been generous to offer people of these faiths in the United Kingdom. Suddenly, however, our screens are full of issues like this.
The right wing brigade most recently were jumping up and down about some woman who was suspended by British Airways for wearing a Christian cross. In fact wearing of any religious symbol is banned, and rightly so. If you're an international air carrier, you're coming into contact with multiple faiths and some of them clearly don't get on. That's the employment rules, she was asked politely to take it off and would not comply. This is no different from the woman in the classroom asked to remove her veil so she could do her job right. We're insensed because this is a Christian country but this woman has a job in an organisation which behaves more like an ambassador than a local chip shop.
Still, the veil thing does get my back up. I wonder if any of you saw the excellent documentary recently of that asian (muslim) woman who won The Apprentice (I dunno her name, I don't watch reality crap like that) getting stuck into the veil issue including confronting veil wearers and asking what on earth they could find useful about it. In fact the best response this particular veil-wearer could manage was "I find it liberating because I'm not being judged by my appearance". Oh right, so it's nothing to do with God telling you in the Koran then. Basically you are, as we all expect of full-veil wearing women, a bit of a munter then.
Well, you stupid cow, if the goal wasn't to be judged by your appearance then you really don't get it at all do you. Listen up you religious whack-job muppet, there are other ugly people in the world and somehow we manage to get on alright with them without them shoving a garbag over their puss.
Oh and incidentally, the Koran really doesn't tell you to do any such thing. I think of God wanted you to wear a tent, he might have been a little more clear with the phrasing eh? Thou Shalt Crown Thyself with Millet's Finest or something.
You have to wonder though, what if I turned up to the office in a ninja suit and then when asked to remove it said "Sorry, I insist on wearing it when there's women around." I'm sure that'd go down ace, and so would the resulting employment tribunal. Oh well, if nothing else I'll apparently get a grand for victimisation.
If there's one thing I find positive about this whole situation it's the sheer number of decent moderate muslims standing up and saying sorry, the niqab is absurd. Just when the muslim community is gaining some ground in understanding and respect... it must feel like going backwards when this comes up and bearded loons fill the televisions, waving plaquards on the streets again.
Don't they have some sense that we might be nearing the point of having enough of their bullshit?
Thursday, 19 October 2006
Friday, 13 October 2006
Bill Goes In Dry [Spiny]
According to the EULA for retail Windows Vista, you will only be able to transfer the licence to another machine once.
Yes you read right, once, for a retail copy, not OEM.
This royally shafts those who choose to build their own machines. Upgrading the motherboard & a few other things meant that re-activation under XP was a pain, but at least it could be done.
Feel free to leave your vitriol here. You may have to register for technet (link in top right of that page) but it only takes a few seconds & there is even no email confirmation of the email address you supply.
The more I hear about Vista, the more I like XP.
Yes you read right, once, for a retail copy, not OEM.
This royally shafts those who choose to build their own machines. Upgrading the motherboard & a few other things meant that re-activation under XP was a pain, but at least it could be done.
Feel free to leave your vitriol here. You may have to register for technet (link in top right of that page) but it only takes a few seconds & there is even no email confirmation of the email address you supply.
The more I hear about Vista, the more I like XP.
Thursday, 5 October 2006
The God Delusion [DrDave]
The God Delusion is the latest work by Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and (in)famous, outspoken atheist.
To someone familiar with his previous works, The God Delusion seems to be the book that Dawkins has been itching to write for 30 years. Earlier works, such as Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker skirted around the subject of the existence (or rather non-existence) of a creater, but in a respectful manner, relying instead on weight of scientific argument to convey their point. This book, on the other hand, is a no-holds barred, unapologetic, unrelenting attack on all forms of organised religion. Dawkins is cutting lose here and apparently loving it.
His early disclaimer that theists will take offence at what he says, but that it really isn't his problem, is refreshing and a welcome break from today's religious apologists who go out of their way to avoid critiscising theism. He makes it very clear that the time of appeasing religion is over - why should religion be deserving of a special respect that you wouldn't afford to someone who believed in, for example, fairies at the bottom of the garden?
He goes on to systematically, rationally and amusingly destroy virtually every pillar of religion (with specific focus on Christianity). St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways are demolished, the ludicrous ontological argument is rightly ridiculed, even Pascal's Wager, that irritant of rationalists for so long, is shown to be rather ridiculous. His treatment of the nativity uses quotes and references from the bible itself to show that it couldn't possibly have happened how we were brought up to believe. And the brief, yet comprehensive, dismissal of Intelligent Design's Irreducable Complexity myth is one of the finest summaries of natural selection I've ever read, and should be required reading for anyone who is fond of quoting the eye as an example of design.
This book quite rightly never out-and-out claims that a personal god, even less a deist god, doesn't actually exist. Instead, it devotes most of its time on this question to what it calls "The God Hypothesis". Dawkins makes the bold move of claiming that the existence of an interested god is a scientific hypothesis. He's right of course, a universe with a god would be quite different from a universe without one, and it should therefore be subject to scientific method.
Dawkins proceeds to use theist claims against them: If life is too complex to have emerged spontaneously, that it must have been designed by an intelligence, then who designed the designer? By appealing to the absurdity of infinite regress, and invoking anthropic principle, Dawkins concludes that while we can't say a god doesn't exist, we can certainly claim that one probably doesn't exist. It is an interesting argument that works by wielding a weapon creationists have themselves used for centuries.
There is a danger in this approach however, that theists will seize upon this idea of god being a scientificly testable entity and attempt to use it to muscle religion into the science curriculum - of course they would be spectacularly missing the point, but when has that ever stopped them?
I found it enlightening to absorb all of these arguments set out so clearly and logically, even for a dyed in the wool atheist such as myself. Dawkins presents arguments and ideas that many of us have probably suspected, but didn't have the required perspicacity to express. It is also bewilderingly brave. The book's conclusions and the use of ridicule and incredulity along the way should be as offensive to theists as they are appealing to rationalists. It wouldn't surprise me if the Children Of Abraham (Middle East Branch) don't take this somewhat personally.
In conclusion, having blitzed through most of the book in an uncharacteristic three day marathon, my verdict is that The God Delusion will be viewed alongside other classic popular science books like A Brief History of Time or Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. It is that good. It should certainly be required reading for atheists, agnostics or theists with doubt. I'm not sure it will convert any believers, but it would certainly test their faith.
To someone familiar with his previous works, The God Delusion seems to be the book that Dawkins has been itching to write for 30 years. Earlier works, such as Climbing Mount Improbable and The Blind Watchmaker skirted around the subject of the existence (or rather non-existence) of a creater, but in a respectful manner, relying instead on weight of scientific argument to convey their point. This book, on the other hand, is a no-holds barred, unapologetic, unrelenting attack on all forms of organised religion. Dawkins is cutting lose here and apparently loving it.
His early disclaimer that theists will take offence at what he says, but that it really isn't his problem, is refreshing and a welcome break from today's religious apologists who go out of their way to avoid critiscising theism. He makes it very clear that the time of appeasing religion is over - why should religion be deserving of a special respect that you wouldn't afford to someone who believed in, for example, fairies at the bottom of the garden?
He goes on to systematically, rationally and amusingly destroy virtually every pillar of religion (with specific focus on Christianity). St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways are demolished, the ludicrous ontological argument is rightly ridiculed, even Pascal's Wager, that irritant of rationalists for so long, is shown to be rather ridiculous. His treatment of the nativity uses quotes and references from the bible itself to show that it couldn't possibly have happened how we were brought up to believe. And the brief, yet comprehensive, dismissal of Intelligent Design's Irreducable Complexity myth is one of the finest summaries of natural selection I've ever read, and should be required reading for anyone who is fond of quoting the eye as an example of design.
This book quite rightly never out-and-out claims that a personal god, even less a deist god, doesn't actually exist. Instead, it devotes most of its time on this question to what it calls "The God Hypothesis". Dawkins makes the bold move of claiming that the existence of an interested god is a scientific hypothesis. He's right of course, a universe with a god would be quite different from a universe without one, and it should therefore be subject to scientific method.
Dawkins proceeds to use theist claims against them: If life is too complex to have emerged spontaneously, that it must have been designed by an intelligence, then who designed the designer? By appealing to the absurdity of infinite regress, and invoking anthropic principle, Dawkins concludes that while we can't say a god doesn't exist, we can certainly claim that one probably doesn't exist. It is an interesting argument that works by wielding a weapon creationists have themselves used for centuries.
There is a danger in this approach however, that theists will seize upon this idea of god being a scientificly testable entity and attempt to use it to muscle religion into the science curriculum - of course they would be spectacularly missing the point, but when has that ever stopped them?
I found it enlightening to absorb all of these arguments set out so clearly and logically, even for a dyed in the wool atheist such as myself. Dawkins presents arguments and ideas that many of us have probably suspected, but didn't have the required perspicacity to express. It is also bewilderingly brave. The book's conclusions and the use of ridicule and incredulity along the way should be as offensive to theists as they are appealing to rationalists. It wouldn't surprise me if the Children Of Abraham (Middle East Branch) don't take this somewhat personally.
In conclusion, having blitzed through most of the book in an uncharacteristic three day marathon, my verdict is that The God Delusion will be viewed alongside other classic popular science books like A Brief History of Time or Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. It is that good. It should certainly be required reading for atheists, agnostics or theists with doubt. I'm not sure it will convert any believers, but it would certainly test their faith.
Monday, 25 September 2006
Defcon! [Slim]
We were lucky enough to be blessed with a shower of keys for Defcon this week: www.everybody-dies.com/
For those that haven't seen it, it's a kind of rts lite based around a strategic world map kind of like what you'd see in War Games and stuff like that.
When I say RTS lite, I mean that theres very few units, and theres no resource collection at all. You're assigned units at the start, and thats all you get. A bunch of silos that can either launch nukes or provide air defense, but not at the same time. Subs that can either launch nukes or take out ships, but not at the same time. Carriers that can either launch planes or take out subs, but again, not at the same time. Oh and fighter and bomber aircraft.
The games timed, so really dont go on for too long. The Defcon level starts at 5 and counts down to each level on a timer. At defcon 5 you can place units and do nowt else. Then defcon 4, radars active. Defcon 3, Can move units and engage boats and aircraft. Defcon2: Not really sure what changes here :) Defcon 1: you can nuke folks.
While you can play vs ai, its primarily a multiplayer game. The networking seems very solid, really easy to join and host games and theres a nice spectator mode too.
Visuals are very distinctive vector style, really striking. It all moves very fast and can look very impressive when things really kick off. Sound is superb, klaxons sound for defcon level changes, stuff like that.
It is flawed a bit. Unit selection is, as ever, a right pain in the tits. Unit movement speed can be a real pain, especially if you fucked up placement. If your fleets are in the wrong ocean, you're never going to be able to move them somewhere useful when the nukes start flying. Gameplay also often comes down to timing, which is fine as it goes, but can make it a bit chicken and egg.
Still, its a tenner, and ace fun. Well worth it.
For those that haven't seen it, it's a kind of rts lite based around a strategic world map kind of like what you'd see in War Games and stuff like that.
When I say RTS lite, I mean that theres very few units, and theres no resource collection at all. You're assigned units at the start, and thats all you get. A bunch of silos that can either launch nukes or provide air defense, but not at the same time. Subs that can either launch nukes or take out ships, but not at the same time. Carriers that can either launch planes or take out subs, but again, not at the same time. Oh and fighter and bomber aircraft.
The games timed, so really dont go on for too long. The Defcon level starts at 5 and counts down to each level on a timer. At defcon 5 you can place units and do nowt else. Then defcon 4, radars active. Defcon 3, Can move units and engage boats and aircraft. Defcon2: Not really sure what changes here :) Defcon 1: you can nuke folks.
While you can play vs ai, its primarily a multiplayer game. The networking seems very solid, really easy to join and host games and theres a nice spectator mode too.
Visuals are very distinctive vector style, really striking. It all moves very fast and can look very impressive when things really kick off. Sound is superb, klaxons sound for defcon level changes, stuff like that.
It is flawed a bit. Unit selection is, as ever, a right pain in the tits. Unit movement speed can be a real pain, especially if you fucked up placement. If your fleets are in the wrong ocean, you're never going to be able to move them somewhere useful when the nukes start flying. Gameplay also often comes down to timing, which is fine as it goes, but can make it a bit chicken and egg.
Still, its a tenner, and ace fun. Well worth it.
Thursday, 21 September 2006
who's tightest, me or 02 [shedir]
Wifey has a phone with 02, £19 a month contract usually averages about 2-3 quid a month higher than that.
Her contract expires next month, fancies the Samsung d900 as my sister got one and it's "lovely". Call 02 on her behalf to be told she can't have it as she doesn't spend enough on her contract.
I was pretty annoyed at that, but new punters can get one "yeah". Right gimme her pac code and I'll start a new contract, with you, and she'll get what she wants. For once in her life (boom tish).
Is it just me being tight, or is this really a dumb way for a company to behave. It's not like there's no competitors out there ffs!
Her contract expires next month, fancies the Samsung d900 as my sister got one and it's "lovely". Call 02 on her behalf to be told she can't have it as she doesn't spend enough on her contract.
I was pretty annoyed at that, but new punters can get one "yeah". Right gimme her pac code and I'll start a new contract, with you, and she'll get what she wants. For once in her life (boom tish).
Is it just me being tight, or is this really a dumb way for a company to behave. It's not like there's no competitors out there ffs!
Sunday, 17 September 2006
Hardcore Humor [shedir]
I like my jokes to be close to the bone, close to offensive to some if not actually offensive. Belters with BITE.
I've watched "the aristocrats" with glee, unashamedly disgusting humor. As low as you can go, then get a shovel out and dig up that rellie and fuck em up the ass, low.
So with a happy gait I went off to the Citizens Theatre to see Jerry Sadowitz. By god he takes no prisoners, beginning the act telling everyone to fuck off and go home as we're all cunts.
Rattling through every ethnic minority or majority he can think of and telling them all where to go, hilarious shit. Great to see folk leaving in first 10 minutes too, an adult family in front of us shot off after 20 minutes.
His jokes about women and sex were crackin too, maybe I'll type some of the best stuff up and slap it in here but even the wifey was decking herself at most of it. The paedo stuff tho was the close to the bone shit, laughter died off for huge chunks of that. I suspected thats the section Jerry enjoys most, knowing folk can't believe what they're hearing.
"Gary Glitter is the greatest rock legend we have ever created, he should be allowed to fuck who he wants...when he wants...where ever he wants....with whatever he wants."
Any gays reading this your secret is out, according to Jerry the latest gay sex trend is taking a huge shit and slapping it in the freezer. Put condoms around either end of the big frozen turd and using it as a sex toy that both guys can enjoy. what the fuck!
Anyway, check out his tour and go along. You'll get a surprise at the ending which I'm not giving out, but got the biggest laugh of the night.
I've watched "the aristocrats" with glee, unashamedly disgusting humor. As low as you can go, then get a shovel out and dig up that rellie and fuck em up the ass, low.
So with a happy gait I went off to the Citizens Theatre to see Jerry Sadowitz. By god he takes no prisoners, beginning the act telling everyone to fuck off and go home as we're all cunts.
Rattling through every ethnic minority or majority he can think of and telling them all where to go, hilarious shit. Great to see folk leaving in first 10 minutes too, an adult family in front of us shot off after 20 minutes.
His jokes about women and sex were crackin too, maybe I'll type some of the best stuff up and slap it in here but even the wifey was decking herself at most of it. The paedo stuff tho was the close to the bone shit, laughter died off for huge chunks of that. I suspected thats the section Jerry enjoys most, knowing folk can't believe what they're hearing.
"Gary Glitter is the greatest rock legend we have ever created, he should be allowed to fuck who he wants...when he wants...where ever he wants....with whatever he wants."
Any gays reading this your secret is out, according to Jerry the latest gay sex trend is taking a huge shit and slapping it in the freezer. Put condoms around either end of the big frozen turd and using it as a sex toy that both guys can enjoy. what the fuck!
Anyway, check out his tour and go along. You'll get a surprise at the ending which I'm not giving out, but got the biggest laugh of the night.
Friday, 15 September 2006
Top 5 Guilty Pleasure Albums [Spiny]
I was flicking through my collection last night & had an 80s throwback moment. Got me thinking - what are my top 5 guilty pleasure albums. You know, ones that you don't crow about, but *really* take you back :)
#5 Offspring - Smash. Amusing US juvenile pretend punk.
#4 The Systers Of Mercy - Floodland. My neuromantic backlash.
#3 Ultravox - Vienna. Box jackets, baggy trousers, 1000 yard stares and eyeliner. How can it be wrong?
#2 Duran Duran - Rio. Perhaps the greatest pop album ever. And hot chicks on yachts.
#1 Gloria Estefan - Salsa!
So, what's in your cupboard?...
#5 Offspring - Smash. Amusing US juvenile pretend punk.
#4 The Systers Of Mercy - Floodland. My neuromantic backlash.
#3 Ultravox - Vienna. Box jackets, baggy trousers, 1000 yard stares and eyeliner. How can it be wrong?
#2 Duran Duran - Rio. Perhaps the greatest pop album ever. And hot chicks on yachts.
#1 Gloria Estefan - Salsa!
So, what's in your cupboard?...
[Edited for "getting my dances begining with 'S' confused"]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
