Far Cry would do the job I reckon. Set in the present. Stuff blows up. Bad guys die in huge numbers :)

They already do a test like this in the UK: http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/[^] and yes, most British people would fail it.

Probably better to back away - it's best not to turn your back on a psychopathic crazy :)

From the article: "The problem with current evolutionary theory is that if females select the most attractive mates, the genes responsible for attractive features should spread quickly through a population, resulting in males becoming equally attractive, to the point where sexual selection could no longer take place." The problem with this statement is that it assumes that all females will only breed with the most attractive males. In reality the most attractive females will tend to get the most attractive males. But the least attractive males and females will still breed (probably with the aid of alchohol). Which will maintain the diverse gene pool. Or something like that.

Yes, but that doesn't fit his argument - so he redefined the word.

oilFactotum wrote:

Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.

It took a minute to find that. I suspect it would not be hard to find others.

oilFactotum wrote:

You made a baseless claim about what Greenpeace's position is on other studies

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/516558.stm[^]

I don't see that has anything to do with the point I made.

Of course, any studies which show GM food to be safe will be dismissed by Greenpeace as biased, but studies that they commission are of course completely unbiased.

John Carson wrote:

anything intelligent I might add to the debate would clearly be lost on you

Your pomposity knows no bounds. You could, of course, have replied with a simple (for us dimwits) logical rebuttle which exposes the stupity of his argument. Strangely, for an awesome intellect such as yourself, you chose to insult instead. Maybe I should stop replying to your messages as the magnificence of my answers are clearly lost on your candle powered brain. But that would make me a bit of a twat - so I won't.

John Carson wrote:

The sun is the source of the heat and the issue is what how much effect it has on the earth. Many things influence that, including CO2 and other gases, dust particles etc. in the atmosphere.

That's what he was discussing - the degree to which the sun affects the Earth's temperature compared to CO2. Do you have anything intelligent to add to the debate?

I was referring to one of Tony Blair's more memorable blunders (not Chirac).

Yes but the argument the Independent article is making is that the reason the temperature did not go up from 1940 - 1970 (even though CO2 levels went up) was because of certain types of pollution. The implication being that the pollution was far more effective at reducing temperature than CO2 was at raising it. If that type of pollution doesn't have this cooling effect then why did temperatures drop while CO2 production was increasing?

K(arl) wrote:

was another of his blunders

Still, probably not as bad as committing far more soldiers to a botched invasion, for no good reason :)

K(arl) wrote:

I don't see really the connection, but you should know there are 2,000 french soldiers

Only after they were shamed into sending them. France, despite telling everyone that a military force should be sent to Lebanon, didn't actually want to commit any troops.

Having skim read the article (so I could be completely wrong about this), it seems to be saying that the membership is based upon those coutries that were seen as world powers after world war two. It also, seems to imply that a continued place on the security council is linked to nuclear weapons. Are the existing members permanent regardless of what happens with their weapons or economy? If, for the sake of argument, the UK gave up its nuclear and most of its conventional weapons, would it really remain a country of influence?

David Wulff wrote:

Read elsewhere: £20 billion would last 17 years with Trident, or 3 months in the NHS

That does make it sound quite cheap. If we nuked a couple of hospitals then it would pay for itself :)

AndyKEnZ wrote:

It's the only way the UK will mentioned in history books pertaining to the present day

I think Mr Blair has secured our place in the history books through his well thought through involvement in Iraq :) I wait with expectation for his next headline grabbing adventure on the world stage...

Agreed.

I agree with your points about the vulnerability of lesser systems. However, is the deterrent primarily there for China and Russia, who may have the capability to bring down cruise missiles or is it aimed at smaller nations which do not? I'm in favour of a nuclear deterrent but I'd like a balance between need and effectiveness. It is a gamble of course, but we take calculated risks all the time and I don't think this should be any different.