Yesssss!

death (9x) sex (5x) crap (3x) dead (2x) drugs (1x)

Fallible Design: Questions I Was Never Taught To Ask

This Post Is Rated: D for Duh! Warning. May cause you to seriously doubt the intelligence of the author. Last month I posted the first in my Fallible Design series: How I Went From Intellectual to Dumb Before I begin this second post I must issue a clarification on the subject of 'evolution'. It appears to me there is a lot of ignorance and omission from both evolutionists and creationists when debating this subject. I include myself when I say ignorance but perhaps it is more lazy thinking. The problem is that the whole 'Evolution vs Creationism' debate is framed wrong. When the term 'evolution' is used, it's far too indefinite and absolute. Thus creationists (who believe God created the universe) easily fall into the trap of arguing against the whole theory and appearing quite stupid. Creationists should not be arguing against 'evolution'. They should study it and argue on the specifics. Wikipedia defines the Theory of Evolution in 6 mechanisms (taken from condensed sources): Adaption - "an anatomical, physiological, or behavioral trait that contributes to an individual's ability to survive and reproduce ('fitness') in competition with conspecifics in the environment in which it evolved" Williams Genetic Drift - "A change in the gene pool of a small population that takes place strictly by chance." - Encyclopaedia Britannica Gene Flow - "The transfer of alleles of genes from one population to another." - Wikipedia Mutation - "A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type." - Answers.com Natural Selection - "The process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common." - Wikipedia Speciation - "The process in which a new species is formed from an initial one." - Ridley I've simplified the mechanisms described above as I'm not a scientist and don't intend to get tangled in the minute details. However some reading in detail is needed to be able to fully understand the differences between these mechanisms that form the basis of the evolutionary theory. Looking at the theory in more detail, as a creationist I would be an idiot to argue against genetic drift, gene flow or natural selection. The problems I and I assume almost all creationists have is with certain elements of adaption and mutation. I say 'certain elements' because it is clear mutation happens, but I disagree that mutations are heritable or transmutation occurs, for example. With this in mind, I intend to change the nature of the debate by redressing the terminology used. I recommend to Christians reading this, that if they intend to debate with evolutionists that argue on specifics such as adaption or transmutation. Debates should be titled to reflect this, eg. 'Creationism vs Adaption' (of course any Christians who disagree or have a better idea- feel free to discuss it in the forums). 'Creationism' itself is a bit of a misnomer because just as there are many complexities to evolution, there are numerous philosophies behind the creation of the universe. Creationism is not even strictly in conflict with evolution, it's not even totally in conflict with the big bang theory. One could happily accept a philosophy such as the clockmaker hypothesis (as is unconsciously popular in western culture) as well as the big bang and all the tenets of the evolutionary theory. With that in mind, I will now proceed with some questions that I have regarding evolution which lead me to doubt the theories of adaption, transmutation and speciation. 1. What happened to the giraffe? The accepted theory for the adaption of the giraffes long neck put forward by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the 1700s was to reach the higher leaves on the trees. It is obvious that giraffes did not starve during this time they were growing their long necks, that there was plenty of vegetation to eat on the ground, so why did it happen at all? I could go on but this has been discussed already many times by people with far more knowledge than me (and not even creationists) - read The Nature Institute: The Giraffe's Short Neck. 2. How is adaption triggered? This is one thing that puzzles me. An animal either somehow finds itself in an alien environment, or it perceives one from afar (eg. fish to land). So over successive generations it's physiology transmutates (adapts) to be able to migrate and exist in that environment. Let's take it for granted that the first fish could observe land above the surface of the water. What is the secret ingredient that now tells the fish genes to start creating fish/mammal hybrids. Of course a creationist could argue God, but that's the easy way out. If not God (or a spiritual/energy/intelligent force if you're a naturalist), then we have to assume that the fish either consciously activated the adaption itself, or received the genetic requirements by some form of applied kinesiology (where the body responds to its environment). It's hard to imagine a simple life form such as a fish (which after millions of years of adaption still falls for the old maggot on a hook) consciously adapting itself, we humans can't even do it. Therefore applied kinesiology it is. 3. With the exclusion of a few nutbags, why don't creationists debate the theory of gravity, or the earth revolving around the sun? Yet the theories of adaption and transmutation still cause much debate. 4. Why does God exist? In opposition to the teaching of intelligent design, Bobby Henderson 'went public' with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which had apparently been around, in secret, hundreds of years. Oddly, whilst being secret, the religion managed to retain "millions, if not thousands" of followers. Not a very good secret then. Yet I doubt any scrap of religious texts could be produced for the FSM could be produced that existed before 2005- which makes it not a very good religion. In fact, can the FSM really be proven to be the same religion it was hundreds of years ago, if no-one shared the secret and no proof existed before 2005? Enough of this nonsense, we all know it's parody, however back to adaption and transmutation. If we really did mutate from bacteria, adapting to new environments as required, how on earth did we adapt God into our environment? This is beyond applied kinesiology- this is some sort of defective mutation. We did not know about the FSM hundreds of years ago, because it did not exist (until an objector decided to respond with a parody). If some form of higher power did not exist, then we would not even know about it. 5. How many parallel universes? Why is it easier to believe in infinite parallel worlds than it is to believe a intelligent being (perhaps on the evolutionary scale) created our planet? Rather than objective reasoning, it seems to me that for people like Stephen Hawking any explanation but a being more advanced than humans will do. 6. Why do we sacrifice our lives, even for our own enemies or people we do not know? If sacrifice is the result of altruistic memes, then why do the memes continue to exist? Surely the memes would have been forgotten early during human development. How would a meme spread if its objective is to work against survival? If it is passed on by genes, why has it not been bred out- how do the sacrificial gene carrier transfer to a non-sacrificial gene carrier, unless you infer that sacrificial genes are also able to recognise sacrificial genes in others. Once again we have to ask how? Is this the same way an organism transmutates into an entirely different organism (see above)? Would it not mean that psychics and spiritualists are real because they are actually using their genes? 7. Why do we wear clothes, and why are we embarrassed by our bodies? Technically, anyone who is free from religion should automatically strip down and start living naked. The first thing that God did when Adam and Eve were discovered to have sinned, was to cover them up. Covering up and hiding parts of the body is deeply rooted in religiosity. So is this a meme that has refused to die? Why is Richard Dawkins still enslaved by this religious meme? Is it a gene that tells us to be ashamed of our own nakedness? Then why doesn't this gene prevent us from going into changing rooms, or revealing our nakedness to a sexual partner? Can the gene detect when it's safe to be naked and when it is not? Why then would someone who has the naked shame gene then be able to overcome that gene later in life to become a nudist? 8. Why do we feel injustice and suffering, why do we seek revenge, what is evil? I once accidentally kicked my dog, when he was a little pup, in the head. But there was never any trace of bitterness or revenge in the dog, we went on to have a healthy 'man and his dog' relationship. However, if we accidentally cut up another motorist, we see can see great examples of bitterness, resentment and hate in the form of road rage. Animals do not show signs of revenge or hate, whereas humans can hold on for a lifetime to one incident and exact revenge years later. Of course animals can exhibit patterns of aggression if under sustained mistreatment or threat (perceived or real). But for an uncharacteristic isolated incident of harm, an animal will not act in this way. Since we have adapted and mutated to our environment, and not the other way round, why do we perceive injustice and unfairness? Surely we would simply adapt to the new environment rather than complain. 9. Why can we conjure abstract thought and concepts? Why are we interested in entertainment? A human being will ignore all natural impulses to eat or survive to feed their appetite for entertainment or greed. 10. At what point did the first organisms become cannibalistic? At some point in the water, or after we crawled out of the water, some of us stopped eating plants and eating each other. Obviously this was not triggered by species survival, was it triggered by mutation? How could this be a slow process of evolving. What did the intermediary species eat while they were waiting for their vegetarian stomachs to turn into carnivore stomachs? This makes me think of dodos. The dodo became extinct through hunting. Like penguins and chickens, they were unable to fly. But why did some of those first land-mammals become birds? It can't be because of a desire to fly, or food supply, otherwise the dodos would have continued flying instead of getting lazy. It must have been to escape predators right? Well as we see by example of the dodo, the first bird would have never had a chance to get its feet off the ground. Why do chickens not fly the coup, to escape inevitable murder at the hands of the farmer? How  long have we been eating chickens and they have not yet developed their wings enough to escape us? Aah but we provide for the chickens and do not feed on them to extinction. So who was there farming the first birds? Do we see any other examples in nature of one species farming another species? Is it even possible? The following is a question of contradictions in the Wikipedia article on introduction to evolution. Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but shows that however naive or inconsistent creationists are in their explanations, evolutionists are just as bad: Key Points Evolution does not mean "progress" towards an ultimate goal; in fact, evolution is not goal-driven. Organisms are merely the outcome of mutations that succeed or fail, dependent upon the environmental conditions at that time. Evolution is not a random process for creating new life forms. Mutations are (partly) random, but natural selection is far from random. Well, which is it- is evolution random or not? Evolution does not state that humans are descended from monkeys, or that human ancestors were monkeys. However, evolution implies that humans and present-day monkeys share a common ancestor. Evolution does not attempt to describe the process which brought forth life on earth (such as abiogenesis or some other method). Why are these things often stated as fact? Why do evolutionist see the need to argue against creationism when it's clear the two are not in conflict (and more to the point, why do creationists respond on their terms)? "Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories ever produced and is widely accepted by biological scientists. An understanding of evolution underlies all biological sciences and much of medicine." Really? how is that benchmarked. No-one disputes gravity so why is this the best? surely an undisputed unanimously agreed theory is the most successful? I have purposefully used my own questions, and not referenced the usual and repeated questions from the main debate, which can be googled. There really is a lack of common sense from both sides. I'm not a scientist so I'm not going to do a large cut and paste job of debunking scientific theories here, but at the same time, I have difficulty tolerating other people who are not scientists simply doing the same thing for the theory of transmutation. I do believe that creationists who want to argue against evolution have set themselves a difficult if not impossible task. Not only are they choosing to argue against a group of differing theories as one big theory (just as anti-theists attack 'religion' and lose by not discerning between different belief systems), they are choosing the wrong theory to attack. How are you going to convince someone who doesn't even believe in a higher power that the universe did not bang itself into existence? Evolution is the only reasonable explanation for them. The theory of Intelligent Design goes a step in the right direction, but even then the next acceptable theory after the big bang would be aliens, which still does not discount the big bang. On the other hand, anti-theists who want people to stop believing in God, are not going to get anywhere by using the theory of evolution. If you can convince someone of transmutation, it shouldn't affect their faith one bit. There's nothing to say that God could not be as active in transmutation as he is in creation. If you really want to rid the world of theism, then you need to study philosophy and find ways to defeat theists by reasoning, rather than by science (which is not the opposite of religion). Technorati Tags: religion, evolution, transmutation, creationism, intelligent design, science, big bang, meme, dawkins, hawking, genes, God DISCUSS THIS POST (Registration is free)

Stealing Abstracts Part 1

This Post Is Rated: I for Ooh... Illegal. Or is it... and what are the implications? It's already been done 1.3 million times and counting. After some careful consideration, I thought I'd join in and "break the law" too: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0 This string of seemingly random numbers forms a key to unlocking the DRM on HD-DVD and Blue Ray hardware. The AACS-LA does not want people to publish this number. In fact it has even threatened legal action against those who choose to publish this set of numbers. I won't go into too much detail here because this story is old and there is already plenty of information on the web and it's been covered extensively by BoingBoing. But is it really illegal to publish a set of numbers? Interestingly (at the time of publishing this post) it has not been tested in court which really raises the question of whether it's actually illegal to own and publish these numbers. Can you really own a number? Something tells me it never will be tested, or if it is, the AACS will probably fail. Can you really see them filing a law-suit against 1.3 million people, many who probably don't even reside in America? Interestingly, Ed Felton of Freedom to Tinker already addressed the issue of 128-bit number ownership: Now, thanks to our newly developed VirtualLandGrab technology, you can own a 128-bit integer of your very own (and then presumably, start issuing take-down notices to anyone who publishes the numbers or keeps a copy of them). Here’s how we do it. First, we generate a fresh pseudorandom integer, just for you. Then we use your integer to encrypt a copyrighted haiku, thereby transforming your integer into a circumvention device capable of decrypting the haiku without your permission. We then give you all of our rights to decrypt the haiku using your integer. The DMCA does the rest. - You Can Own An Integer Too - Get Yours Here! I'm plan to do a follow up post on this subject as it demands a more thoughtful analysis, but my initial thoughts on this subject is that we have moved beyond a mere Information Age and are becoming part of a type of Information Revolution. Traditional business models and capitalist frameworks are being usurped by Creative Commons and Open Source. These examples speak for themselves: EFF: Public Interest Prevails in Digital Copyright Showdown The Inquirer: Linux Man says Microsoft screwed itself Finish Court Rules CSS Protection used in DVDs "ineffective" Lessig Blog: Required Reading: The Next 10 Years The Enquirer: EMI Has DRM Free Sales Boom SmartFlix: This Post is for You, Robert Tourtelot eCoustics: Dell Introduces Linux Based Computers Software Journal: Microsoft and IBM admits Google is now a rival... Whether you know it or not you are witness to a civil war taking place over the net. The internet is a type of 'wild west' or Electronic Frontier if you will. All the rules from the old country no longer count. If you Google search, blog, social network, make internet calls or have ever used any kind of free or open source software then you have already chosen your side or become a sympathiser for the revolutionaries. My second thought is this, by pursuing legal action even against people who simply publish a string of numbers (regardless of knowledge of how to use them), then the AACS and other vested interests are already losing the battle. They dilute the severity of their claim by attacking anyone without discretion, and they will be opening the door for people to claim ownership of numbers and text (see above)- the end result would be death of progress, innovation and design. Imagine a programmer that would have to obtain rights from a different 'owner' for every line of code they wrote for a new program? Perhaps the only way to move forward would be for programmers to learn Klingon or some other language- until the AACS claimed ownership of certain strings of Klingon numbers and words. In my view, those who are blurring the lines between what is and isn't illegal copying are the proprietors and proponents of DRM and the DMCA. More to come. Technorati Tags: drm, aacs key, dmca, copyright, open source, illegal, creative commons, electronic frontier, information revolution, hd-dvd, blue-ray, 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 DISCUSS THIS POST

Terminators 2: War of the Machines

This Post Is Rated: N for Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Contains references to giant robots and how wrong they've all got it. In March I blogged about real Terminators in the not to distant future, inspired by Prof. Prabhu Guptara's blog post on the subject. I found an interesting post in Paleo-Future's archives recently: Gigantic Robots to Fight our Battles. Of course this was originally written in 1934, but doesn't it sound like a feasible future solution to war and terrorism? Imagine, everyone could live in peace whilst nations no longer kill each other but decide who wins with robots. Of course... this will never happen and the reason why is simple- death. Death has the final say, wins all arguments and wins all wars. Suppose a future nation, for trade benefits, decides to conquer another smaller nation. Both nations have powerful robots/weapons and agree to go to war in some distant desert. Eventually one nations robots obtain the upper hand and win the war. Neither nation has experienced bloodshed, sacrificed their armies or lost any territory. So what incentive is there for the 'losing' nation to give up power and be occupied? No leader or nation is going to willingly allow themselves to be taken over simply because they lost a few robots in some remote location that did not affect them. The only logical step for the 'winner' is to then use their remaining robots and weapons against the nation they have won the victory. Even if they succeed to conquer without further violence, it has been through the threat of bloodshed, to induce compliance, not the absence of it. But there is a greater threat to global freedom and democracy underfoot. Without knowing it, the world is in a new subterranean arms race. It's the race for robots in which the Asian continent seems to be leading. It's the robot arms race, specifically for robots capable of successfully identifying and exterminating (as well as rescuing and serving) human targets. Whoever wins this arms race will probably end up deciding the fate of the planet. The ability to deploy robots into any hostile civilian or combat situation will give the nation with the greatest AI, the keys to the world kingdom. They will either end up dictating the course of other nations for their own benefit, or we will enter another cold war where fear of our enemies robots both keep our fingers on the trigger and prevent us deploying our own AI at the same time. The only viable way that an AI cold war could be prevented is in much the same way as the last one was ended- by diplomacy. It would require one or more nations to to pledge against using anti-personnel robots on the battlefield (much the same way chemical weapons are forbidden now). Finally this post is not meant to represent a pro-war stance. I am and will remain anti-war. However as a realist, it seems that as long as their are presidents, dictators, borders and non-renewable resources there will be wars. Technorati Tags: robots, ai, terminators, war, future, technology, cold war, global leadership, arms race Read: Terminators DISCUSS THIS POST

Londonland Part 1

This Post Is Rated: M for Mildly Offensive. Londoners may take particular offense at the revelations of this post (and they are welcome to it). Inserted with Windows Live Writer... Impressive eh? Last year I moved from Warwickshire, England to Ealing, Londonland and having been in this strange culture for several months now, I feel able to comment on it fully. Londonland is ruled by Supreme Dictator Red Ken, whose rule has been unchallenged for 7 years and at this rate looks set to go on forever. Natives of Londonland refer to it simply as London, but it is quite obvious that the Supreme Dictator considers London to be a separate state from the country of England, where I come from. After all, in England, mayors of large cities tend to serve the inhabitants of their cities and are concerned with matters within their jurisdiction. It would be rare to see an English mayor flying all over the world to attract business and mass-migration, posturing on the world stage like a prime minister, president or royalty would. The people of Londonland (Londoners) are very different from the English. For example, English people such as myself, enjoy fresh air and open spaces, so they buy and build property that allows them to experience these things. In Londonland, people have a fear of open spaces, so they cover anything green with flats and industrial parkland. Then they buy a large family houses and split each room into several living compartments for single or couples. The Mayor of London has erected a Congestion zone surrounding the City of London and the counties of Kensington and Chelsea. This is to create the maximum amount of congestion in the surrounding areas of Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith, Battersea, Vauxhall and Islington. This has the effect of reducing air quality as traffic takes longer to reach its destination. The exchange rate between England and Londonland is 1:3. For every 1 pound you spend in England, you spend on average 3 pounds in Londonland. That's why in England a hairdresser is usually a low paid job, but in Londonland hairdressers outrank fund managers and investment bankers. Londoners have no basic sense of geography. Many Londoners would be able to tell you what time you need to catch the Victoria line to Kings Cross but have no idea how to get home if you offer them a lift in the car. When queried about a place existing outside of the M25, they simply do not know, it doesn't exist. There is no past-time that Londoners enjoy more than queing. Everywhere you go in Londonland you will find you have to queue. Infrastructure is designed to maximise queue potential by making buildings and streets as small as possible. If Londoners can't queue then they settle for overcrowding, which is just as much fun. The objective of the game is to wait until the tube train pulls up and then try to cram as many people as possible into one space. If you're not breathing the armpit of the person standing next to you, then you simply haven't got enough people in yet. A good tactic of 'overcrowding' is to stand as near to the door as possible to maximise the sardine effect. The Mayor of Londonland knows how much Londoners enjoy 'overcrowding', which is why he doesn't invest money into tube infrastructure to create more capacity. Motorists of Londonland love nothing more than sitting in their car and going nowhere, especially in the hot sun. So as an alternative to the enjoyable activity of queuing to get into a car park, the Mayor of Londonland has done his best to recreate the a car park on Londonlands roads. This has been achieved by installing as many speed humps, traffic lights and one-way routes as possible. Of course this alone would not slow traffic down enough to simulate all the thrills of sitting in a car park, so the Mayor has also converted as many 2-lane roads as possible into single lanes. In order to do this he marked out long stretches of road with red tarmac. These lanes are specially reserved for the mythical London Bus. 'Mythical' because a bus is rarely seen on these strips of red tarmac, however, plenty can be spotted queuing amongst the cars on the black tarmac. Londonland has very different traffic rules to England. For example, in Londonland, motorbikes and mopeds usually drive on the right side of the road, and only move onto the left side if the right side of the road is blocked by oncoming traffic. In England, where I am from, people generally use their car horns to express dissatisfaction with another driver, in a situation such as where the other driver has cut them up. In Londonland, the car horn is used to express apology or appreciation of your driving, ie. If someone cuts you up or crosses into your lane, it's not unusual for them to beep you on their horn, the longer they beep the more apologetic they are. Finally, when living in Londonland it's important to emphasise how great living in Londonland is to visitors from England and other countries. A true Londoner will never mention the foibles detailed above because they don't see them. It makes me think of the line that Morpheus speaks to Neo from The Matrix... "Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself... The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." Londonland is a Matrix. Bleak, concrete, systematic and ruled by sinister government programs and agents. Green spaces and parks seem to be artificial compared to England. There's nowhere you can go that other people aren't and we are watched by a melee of cameras and robots. Welcome to Londonland.   Technorati Tags: london, england, environment, mayor of london, ken livingstone, culture, life, london transport, tube, congestion zone, traffic, queues   Discuss this post

Forums Are Open

This Post Is Rated: F for Friendly. Contains information related to the operation of Abandon All Fear. I have just finished setting up the Abandon All Fear Forums. The code was free from phpBB and automatically installed with the software offered by my hosts. It's a basic forum, I haven't done anything to change the scheme apart from swapping the header image. I'm receiving on average about 30 visitors a day, so I'm not expecting the forums to take-off soon. From now on at the end of most blog posts there will be a link to discuss the post in the forums. This allows for more reader interaction, contribution and for subject matter to grow beyond the initial post. I don't have false expectations and I'm aware I may be jumping to forums a bit too early, but I reckon AAF forums have the potential to provide a place where: Both people with and without faith can engage with like-minds on faith, politics, culture and current events. Debate is encouraged between people of faith and those without. Blog posts can be discussed and extended upon. The community and post and read experiences, examples, information and how-to's on fighting the fear (legally challenging authorities that abuse their power). There are many forums and websites that already specialise in different areas, such as consumer action and speed cameras, which I link to often. AAF is not seeking to compete with these sites, they have far more experience and have helped Alex Fear greatly. AAF seeks to bring it all under one roof, providing first hand experience from Alex Fear and directing those in need of more information and details to these excellent resources. The forums will hopefully allow anyone else to bring their experience and references to the more specialised source like these. Hopefully we can all inspire and be inspired to take civil action, putting justice and mercy first before predatory systems and the database and tick-box culture. Please feel free to register in the forums and create new threads under the appropriate headings. If there is no appropriate heading, or you think something should be added, make a suggestion. Finally, if this works I will need moderators and I am looking people to write for this blog- details in this post. Technorati Tags: abandon all fear, forums, discussion, politics, social justice, database culture, tick-box culture, predatory systems, civil action Your thoughts? Don't just comment... discuss it in the forums.

Shout Out To Those I RSS

This Post Is Rated: F for Friendly shout out. Just finished updating a new page purely for a list of blogs I read, rss or occasionally visit. In no particular order or preference. Here are the blogs. I will be modifying the links page to feature websites only, however some of these may soon cross over to resources. The objective here is to turn AAF into a conglomerate of non-professional advice, information and experience on challenging corrupt or pharisaic authorities that make the decisions and rules for us to live by, but don't necessarily follow the rules themselves.

Battery Powered Death Machine

This Post Is Rated: C for Controversial. Would have been fun if it hadn't been about a life-threatening contraption built by environMENTALISTS. If anyone wanted further proof that the environMENT has become more important that human life, last month Top Gear released the G-Wiz Crash tests: This is the car Red Ken, Global Leader and Supreme Dictator of Londonland, wants you and everyone else to drive one of these awful death-traps. Here's a piece cut from the FAQ on G-Wiz manufacturers site: What about safety in the G-Wiz? The G-Wiz is a breakthrough product in the fight against climate change... Thanks but we asked about safety Excessive speed, no seat belts, alcohol & drug usage, and driver error are the main causes of accidents and injuries in the UK... Just so you know, it's not our fault if you end up dead in one Whilst larger, heavier cars in general perform better in crash tests, they are also more likely to injure other road users... Our cars will only kill you The G-Wiz has a tubular steel space frame which surrounds the driver and passengers. This includes side impact bars and a front crumple zone designed to protect passengers in low speed collisions... Low speed collision = 2mph? Why have no manufacturer Euro NCAP crash tests been done on the G-Wiz? Neither the Euro NCAP test nor the Dept of Transport UNECE Regulation 94 test are required or recommended under the European regulation for quadricycles. Both tests are designed for M1 vehicles, primarily cars capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph and not low speed urban vehicles... Wow, that's convenient, avoids any marketing problems. Like all vehicle manufacturers RECC is however constantly reviewing safety features and innovation relative to usage... I feel safer already - as long as the other guy is driving one. Source: Going Green FAQ HT Gavin Ayling. Technorati Tags: death trap, g-wiz, environment, london, ken livingstone, crash tests

Filipino Sex Blog

This Post Is Rated: F for Fun. How are people googling this website? Checking my stats this evening, it's always fun to see what people googled to find AAF. "immigration laws on how i can deport my wife" helped someone to find their way here. I do hope you can work it out. "arrested handcuffed or handcuffs or handcuffing or handcuff..." "dark side xxx" got someone to a Christian blog, which is not quite what I think they were looking for. "threatening letters" No not coming from here, honest. Unless you're referring to the ones I sent the bank... "immigrant you shriek, 12 apostles" "abandon pigeon in the street" "fear of people named alex" Gets me number 1. "filipino sex blog" Actually got me a hit once, I tell no lie. These are all search terms from various points over the last couple of months, so most have slipped off the first page of rankings by now. I've also noticed a few hits through a proxy search engine AnonyMouse. This allows you to surf the web without disclosing your IP address which is quite useful. Interesting since the hits don't correlate with any critics so far as I can tell.   Technorati Tags: google, search terms, anonymouse, funny, humour

The Logo of the Beast

This Post Is Rated: F for A good Fun poke at a marketing disaster. But is there something more sininster at work? Conspiracy theories are afoot regarding the new Notwinter Sportfest 2011> <2013 Logo. Stef of Famous for 15 megapixels Blogs: "In another world exclusive scoop* for the Conspiraloon™ Alliance, the true form of the fragmented 2012 Olympic Logo is revealed..."   While Cranmer alerts us to a possible Zionist conspiracy, as discovered by Times journalist Daniel Finkelstein:   Could the the dark, hidden agenda be to completely turn people off the Notwinter Sportfest? Have we already seen the first wave of the attack?   Technorati Tags: Olympics, Zionism, Nazism, Olympic Logo, 2012, Conspiracy, Marketing Disaster

No Comment

Well, I guess when you post anything slighty critical of Rachel North, you can expect at some point for a member of the Northsquad to show up. I did always say they were welcome but I'm getting pretty tired of the relentlessness of one Anonymous commenter. Despite claims, I haven't seen a large boost in traffic coming from Oxford. Oh well, guess I won't be picking up one of these anytime soon. Stats... stats... preeeccciiioouus staaats! I can't stand comment moderation, I never thought I would have to use it, but after this comment: "I can see what you are putting forward and it looks to me like an attack on a blogger to get publicity for your own blog by being 'controversial and doing a bit of victim-blaming. Perhaps you do not care to talk to readers. Perhaps you do not care about your reputation. R clearly does and fair play to her." Anything involving Rachel North seems to get serious pretty quickly, so I'm taking steps to ensure this doesn't escalate. I seem to have suffered a bit of a comment explosion, at the moment. I may have taken on too many battles at once. I think this blog needs to cool down a bit so I'm going to be posting light humour for a while before I resume Fallible Design, Housing Market Myths and other subjects. Regular readers, feel free to dribble away till my stats are near death. Alex Fear needs a rest before once again taking up arms against the Philistine hordes. Moderation will be removed as soon as stupidity levels are reasonably lower. Technorati Tags: comment moderation, publicity, stats, rachel north, attack blog, victimisation, criticism

The War Against Theism

This Post Is Rated: O for May be deemed Offensive. But it's not, really, not unless you want to be offended. Side Note: This is my first post using Microsoft's new Windows Live Writer, which works almost effortlessly with Blogger! It's amazing, Microsoft is actually embracing third party and open source?! It's actually pretty decent and so far was the easiest to configure amongst the ones I tested. I consider myself a fairly moderate/progressive Christian, someone who believes in all the tenets of the Christian faith, but also someone who you could have a pint down the pub with and talk about current events. But I started to notice that some of the bloggers whose opinions I both read and respect have made negative reference to the Christian faith, both passively and directly. The basis of their arguments usually consist of the old Science vs Religion argument, but it can sometimes degenerate into the usual "religion is dangerous/evil/fault of the worlds problems". I therefore felt I should make a direct comment on the rise of anti-theism that is being led by fundamentalist atheists such as Richard Dawkins. It's not just a point of discussing scientific theories, if that was the case most people would not have heard of him, it's gets much more personal than that. The reason being is that Dawkins and people like him are hostile towards religion, specifically Christianity, and consider believers like myself to be infected with a "virus of the mind". Before I continue, it is important to separate atheism from anti-theism. An atheist is someone who disbelieves in the existence of a God or gods (some atheists prefer to be referred to as 'normal', but then we would have to call theists not-normal, and if these statistics are to be believed, theism is the norm. Whatever, lets avoid the neologisms for now). In contrast, an anti-theist is someone who not only disbelieves in a God or gods, it is someone who is opposed to that belief in others. Many readers of this blog may be atheist, but they do not spend their days trying to disprove God or rally against believers, they simply live their lives as we all do. I made a rational choice 10 years ago to become a Christian (and continue to believe against the difficulties that present themselves). I can understand why someone would make a rational choice to become an atheist, or would be an atheist simply because they have not had a religious upbringing. So if you're confident in your beliefs, it should mean that there's no real reason to feel threatened by someone else's. Yet after suffering the intolerance of the religious right for years, we now must now also face the intolerance of the militant anti-theists. I have a theory on anti-theists. You see a true atheist really has nothing against God, since they don't believe God exists. They do not feel the need to fight against something that isn't there. This makes me think that anti-theists are people who have either been hurt in the past by the church, or hold some sort of grudge against God and/or believers. After all Dawkins himself flip-flopped between Christianity and atheism in his early years. You can't tell me there isn't some bitterness there towards the church. I know because I've been in the church for 10 years, you just don't come away without some scars! But before I'm accused of being obsessive. It's not all about Dawkins, he is merely a figurehead, easy to reference. There are many evangelists on the side of anti-theism. The thing that bothers me most is the lack of intellect and common sense in the arguments against faith. This is observed in the often used platitudes and aphorisms, when arguing against theism: "Religion is not only wrong, it's evil" - New Atheism "Theism and its corresponding religions are harmful to society and individuals" - No God Network "[Religion] teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg "Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed." - Sam Harris "The Nazi policy of genocide was based on premises quite similar to those in the Hebrew Bible." - Hector Avalos "[Religion] is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness." - American Atheists "Religion kills." - Christopher Hitchens So according to the proponents of anti-theism, religion is: evil, harmful to society, uneducated, responsible for violence, comparable to Nazism, criminal, cruel, envious, hateful, malicious, uncharitable and it kills. As the Americans would say, that's a long rap sheet. Shouldn't we start rounding up theists and executing them for the good of humanity? It's clear that by choosing to be a Christian I am aligning myself with the mythological Devil of the scriptures! I have sold myself to the ideological Satan of the post-modern world. I'm fine with that description if that's what you want to use to define my set of beliefs. Here's a list of other deluded individuals like myself from past and present, who have caused harm to society through their theistic beliefs: A List of Evil Religious Oppressors Martin Luthor King Leader of the civil rights movement for blacks in America. Dietrich Bonhoeffer Led a movement against the Nazi regime in Germany. William Wilberforce Led the movement to abolish slavery in the UK. CS Lewis Author of The Chronicles of Narnia and wrote many apologetics for the Christian faith. Jim Wallis Leader of Sojourners for social justice and peace. JRR Tolkien Author of The Lord of the Rings. Johnny Cash Famous singer. Alice Cooper Famous singer. George Washington American President. Isaac Newton Scientist and mathematician. First hypothesized the law of gravitation. John Milton Author of Paradise Lost. William Booth Founder of the Salvation Army. Galileo Galilei Astronomer and physicist. Theorised that the Earth moved around the Sun and not the other way round. Blaise Pascal French mathematician and physicist. Inventor of the hydraulic press and syringe. One of the early fathers of modern computer engineering. Charles Spurgeon Founder of Spurgeon's charity for children and young people. John Adams American President. Helped draft the Declaration of Independence. Obviously this is just a small list of criminals who have committed crimes against humanity. But what about anti-theists and their wonderful contribution towards humanity? If we're going to define theists as evil, ignorant and murderous, then it's only fair that we establish a definition for all atheists and anti-theists. Here is a list of atheists and anti-theists who have brought enlightenment and peace to the world, through their atheism: A List of Enlightened Humanitarian Atheists Pol Pot Ruler of Cambodia, Responsible for the genocide of one third of Cambodia's population since being in power in his orchestrated 'Year Zero'. Josef Stalin Russian dictator, 'purged' his party of political rivals and organised assassinations of political opponents. Responsible for Ukrainian genocide and various atrocities against Eastern Europeans after WW2. Jeffrey Dahmer American serial killer. Robert Mugabe Leader of Zimbabwe, a 'corrupt dictator' who has oppressed political opponents and ruined the economy with his land reform policies. Mao Zedong Led a 'violent revolution' of China, executed political opponents and committed acts of genocide against people branded 'counter-revolutionaries'. Kenneth Parnell Convicted sex offender and kidnapper. Larry Gene Ashbrook Disturbed and paranoid spree killer. Armin Meiwes German cannibal who killed and consumed a willing victim he met on the Internet. Karl Marx Philosopher whose works have inspired many communist regimes including Maoism, Stalinism, North Korea, Russia and Cuba to name a few. Harold Shipman British serial killer.