Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Interesting Stuff Thread

1…4445474950…132

Comments

  • #2302
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    robindch wrote: »
    Patrick Moore hasn't quite got over WWII:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137652/Patrick-Moore-says-hates-Germans-70-years-Nazi-bomb-killed-fianc-e.html

    That's kind of disappointing to me. I'm quite fond of Patrick Moore, but that kind of stuff makes it hard to look up to him.


  • #2303
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,165 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    he's well known for his 'old fashioned' opinions.
    he's not too fond of uppity women, if i remember correctly.


  • #2304
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ‘A German general said to me at the end of the war, “You won two wars. You won’t win the third. And that’s the economic war.” I hope he’s wrong
    How could Germans take control of Europe's finances? Oh wait.....


  • #2305
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Our Oldest Ancestor.


  • #2306
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0501/1224315408779.html
    Irish Times wrote:
    THE GOVERNMENT is expected to agree today to back legislation giving humanists the same status as organised religions and civil registrars in conducting marriage ceremonies. Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton is due to ask her ministerial colleagues to support the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill at this morning’s Cabinet meeting. The legislation was introduced in the Seanad as a Private Members’ Bill by Trinity College Senator Ivana Bacik and is due to pass final stages in the Upper House tomorrow.

    [...]

    There had been “no real progress” until the change of government last year, when Ms Bacik agreed to take up their cause. “As the law stands presently a couple cannot have a legally binding, nonreligious marriage ceremony on a Saturday, as the State registrars work only Monday to Friday,” he added. The proportion of couples choosing a non-religious, civil wedding ceremony in Ireland has increased from 6 per cent in 1996 to more than 23 per cent in 2006, according to the Central Statistics Office. Humanism is defined as “an ethical philosophy of life, based on a concern for humanity, which combines reason with compassion”. The HAI has nine accredited celebrants who conducted 153 marriage ceremonies last year.


  • #2307
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,782 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Its very simple - the government should just have a system where any couple, over 18, and acting of their own free will, can get registered on a civil marriage register (and then have the same rights/responsibilities any married couple currently has). Then people can have whatever private religious/non-religious/Klingon etc ceremony they want. If the government only cares about the civil register and has no say about the private ceremony, then we wont need to constantly have to get humanist weddings or gay marriages or whatever added to the law books as separate, possibly lesser, entities.


  • #2308
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,165 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its very simple - the government should just have a system where any couple, over 18, and acting of their own free will, can get registered on a civil marriage register (and then have the same rights/responsibilities any married couple currently has). Then people can have whatever private religious/non-religious/Klingon etc ceremony they want.
    the system does allow this (assuming the couple are not same sex).
    what it doesn't allow is for you to have the two together in the same ceremony, unless you're religious.


  • #2309
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Wallpaper fodder.:D


  • #2310
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jernal wrote: »
    Wallpaper fodder.:D

    Wonder how much it'd be to get that printed as a poster.


  • Advertisement
  • #2311
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Latest "persecuted" christian loses case:

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/05/latest-persecuted-christian-case-dismissed-by-employment-tribunal

    Reading the report, I can't help but think of a recent, but now sadly permanently departed, poster:
    NSS wrote:
    However, when Sue James, current chief executive of Derby's hospitals was called to give evidence, she revealed that Dr Drew produced a "toxic environment" at the hospital by constantly raising complaints against his co-workers. Mrs James said: "For two and a half years we had a relationship that wasn't working." [...] "It was about the verbosity and length of his emails. He deconstructed every sentence and sent it to so many people." Mrs James said she was soon being sent numerous emails from Dr Drew complaining about the report's findings. She said: "I was the chief executive running the hospital and David was taking up one day of my personal time a week. We needed to move forward."


  • #2312
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,782 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the system does allow this (assuming the couple are not same sex).
    what it doesn't allow is for you to have the two together in the same ceremony, unless you're religious.

    That's my point, the system shouldn't care about the ceremonies, it shouldn't even be aware of them, they have nothing to do with it. The system shouldn't care who you thank after filling a civil form, be it the christain god after registering a marriage, the muslim god after after registering a birth or Michael Schumacher after getting a driving licence.


  • #2313
    shizz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,506 ✭✭✭shizz


    Brilliant video made of a collection of videos taken from the ISS


  • #2314
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I got a CITTA' DEL VATICANO 50 cent coin in my change today.

    It is a 2011 one with Benedict on it.

    It is interesting to me...


  • #2315
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,469 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Tempted to stamp 'FTP' onto it and put it back in circulation? :pac:

    Scrap the cap!



  • #2316
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    That's my point, the system shouldn't care about the ceremonies, it shouldn't even be aware of them, they have nothing to do with it. The system shouldn't care who you thank after filling a civil form, be it the christain god after registering a marriage, the muslim god after after registering a birth or Michael Schumacher after getting a driving licence.
    I see your point. You think those getting married in a church should have to go down to the registry office afterwards to make it official in the eyes of the State.
    But you are forgetting that there is always some kind of ceremony, even in a registry office. Its necessary because marriage is more than filling in a form. Its all about standing up in front of your tribe and making a public commitment.
    Seeing as religions are so good at pomp and ceremony, the State has always trusted that a form filled out at a religious ceremony would have a suitable amount of "gravitas" which I think is fair enough.
    What we are seeing now is that privilege being extended to various other kinds of gatherings.


  • Advertisement
  • #2317
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,782 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    recedite wrote: »
    I see your point. You think those getting married in a church should have to go down to the registry office afterwards to make it official in the eyes of the State.
    But you are forgetting that there is always some kind of ceremony, even in a registry office. Its necessary because marriage is more than filling in a form. Its all about standing up in front of your tribe and making a public commitment.
    Seeing as religions are so good at pomp and ceremony, the State has always trusted that a form filled out at a religious ceremony would have a suitable amount of "gravitas" which I think is fair enough.
    What we are seeing now is that privilege being extended to various other kinds of gatherings.

    There is always a ceremony because people have been brought up to think that marriage is a strictly religious thing, and so even when they reject religion they still desire the ceremony. This shouldn't matter to the State. The State should have no opinion on religious ceremonies (once nothing illegal happens at them) and it should not give priviledge to certain religions or ideologies. The form signing can still happen at whatever ceremony people choose to have without the State specifically giving priveledge to any type of ceremony.


  • #2318
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Locations of Population Densities.


  • #2319
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its very simple - the government should just have a system where any couple, over 18, and acting of their own free will, can get registered on a civil marriage register (and then have the same rights/responsibilities any married couple currently has). Then people can have whatever private religious/non-religious/Klingon etc ceremony they want. If the government only cares about the civil register and has no say about the private ceremony, then we wont need to constantly have to get humanist weddings or gay marriages or whatever added to the law books as separate, possibly lesser, entities.

    Why couple? Surely a group of humans should be just as able to become married?


  • #2320
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,165 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The State should have no opinion on religious ceremonies (once nothing illegal happens at them) and it should not give priviledge to certain religions or ideologies. The form signing can still happen at whatever ceremony people choose to have without the State specifically giving priveledge to any type of ceremony.
    but that's what this new bill will deal with, unless i'm reading you wrong?
    they are (well, will be) licencing people to act as proxies for HSE registry staff without prejudice for their religious beliefs, and the people who are then getting married choose to do it in a format which they choose, which has both the religious aspect (if desired) and the legal aspect.


  • #2321
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,469 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Why couple? Surely a group of humans should be just as able to become married?

    Why stop there - Caligula married his horse didn't he?

    Scrap the cap!



  • Advertisement
  • #2322
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Quick social experiment;

    Ray D'Arcy said "fu*ked" in relation to the RCC, blood was called for.
    This morning, Ryan Tubbs said "sh|t" in relation to "Beating the _ out of" a Piñata. Let's see who complains.


  • #2323
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Why stop there - Caligula married his horse didn't he?
    A horse can't consent.

    I have thought about this problem, and I don't think there's a particularly good argument for limiting marriage to two people. (This is not to condone polygamy in the frequently seen version where children are married to elders.)


  • #2324
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucVDpmFz-E&feature=colike

    2 hours long, very interesting look at a town full of yankie kooks.


  • #2325
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,782 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Why couple? Surely a group of humans should be just as able to become married?

    Yeah sure, I was just saying couple because that's what's most common, but if three or four or a football team want to get married of their own free will, that's fine by me.


  • #2326
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,782 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but that's what this new bill will deal with, unless i'm reading you wrong?
    they are (well, will be) licencing people to act as proxies for HSE registry staff without prejudice for their religious beliefs, and the people who are then getting married choose to do it in a format which they choose, which has both the religious aspect (if desired) and the legal aspect.

    Maybe I'm reading it wrong it too (I read it that it was specifically humanist weddings that where being added this time, not that there was a change of the whole law making it general), but what happens if a large amount of people suddenly want Klingon weddings? Will there need be an amendment to the law to allow for that ceremony? And then any further ceremony that becomes even somewhat popular?
    If I read it wrong, and the law is now general and humanist ceremonies were just mention as an example (or the main motivation to change the law) then I have no problem with it once its changed.


  • #2327
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The Bill proposes to extend the right to conduct civil marriages to nonreligious groups such as the HAI. A group of this nature must be a “philosophical and nonconfessional body”, have been performing marriage ceremonies for at least five years, and at least 20 couples must have participated in the ceremony.
    Not just Humanists then, but not just any random club either. I think its a good progression. An evolution in thinking, if you like.
    As for polygamy, well if marriage is a commitment, then surely there is a dilution of the commitment as the number of partners increases? Eventually you end up with a completely open arrangement. Like Quagmire for example, who is slightly committed to all the women in the world .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6qvJp4zPlY


  • #2328
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    recedite wrote: »
    As for polygamy, well if marriage is a commitment, then surely there is a dilution of the commitment as the number of partners increases? Eventually you end up with a completely open arrangement. Like Quagmire for example, who is slightly committed to all the women in the world .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6qvJp4zPlY

    Well it's a commitment to a relationship imo not a number of people. I'm not ever gonna go looking for a polygamous marriage but I do feel polygamy gets a hard time because of how it's predominantly practised.
    Anyway my preference would be to remove any state provided advantages to married over non-married rather than restrict who can marry each other.


  • #2329
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    We don't even get to see the full beauty of the world around us.

    aRjn8.png

    Can anyone spot the error?:)


  • #2330
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Anyway my preference would be to remove any state provided advantages to married over non-married rather than restrict who can marry each other.
    Again, this is problematic because the state advantages are basically tied up with who inherits your stuff when you die. In other words, trying to define who is a relative and who is not.


  • #2331
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Jernal wrote: »
    We don't even get to see the full beauty of the world around us.


    Can anyone spot the error?:)

    1mm?
    recedite wrote: »
    Again, this is problematic because the state advantages are basically tied up with who inherits your stuff when you die. In other words, trying to define who is a relative and who is not.

    That can all be worked around though. If one party dies it could be left to the others and when the last dies if they have no kids in the marriage split the possessions to each ones family or require a will be wrote out outlining who gets what before hand etc. It's not good enough to refuse people equality because it's hard.


  • Advertisement
  • #2332
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Jernal wrote: »
    Can anyone spot the error?:)
    They have got the wavelengths mixed up when talking about the snakes and the bugs. Also I don't like the way they saturate an image with blue to simulate "bugs and birds" vision. A trichromatic pollinating insect would see the reds in addition to the UV colours. Why would the robin in the illustration have a red breast if the other robins couldn't see it? It would be as pointless as my ultra-violet shirt.
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    That can all be worked around though. If one party dies it could be left to the others and when the last dies if they have no kids....
    I suppose so, as long as its all clearly defined in advance. Jernals puzzles are easier to figure out:)


  • #2333
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    They have got the wavelengths mixed up when talking about the snakes and the bugs. Also I don't like the way they saturate an image with blue to simulate "bugs and birds" vision. A trichromatic pollinating insect would see the reds in addition to the UV colours. Why would the robin in the illustration have a red breast if the other robins couldn't see it? It would be as pointless as my ultra-violet shirt.


    I suppose so, as long as its all clearly defined in advance. Jernals puzzles are easier to figure out:)

    I assumed the redbreast was for cloaking purposes, they are unbelievably hard to pick out among fallen leaves :pac:


  • #2334
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    2012-02-15-CARL-SAGAN-make-the-most-of-this-life.gif
    2012-05-01-tyson.jpg


  • #2335
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,469 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Jernal wrote: »
    We don't even get to see the full beauty of the world around us.

    Can anyone spot the error?:)

    The human eye can detect images at great distance, e.g. the Andromeda Galaxy. Is 2.6 million light years away far enough for ya?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #2336
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I assumed the redbreast was for cloaking purposes, they are unbelievably hard to pick out among fallen leaves :pac:
    The juveniles stay out of territorial disputes by being all-brown


  • #2337
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,469 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Great graphic though, it's mind-blowing that all heavier elements, including those without which life could not exist, were created in the nuclear fusion death throes of long-dead stars.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #2338
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    The Atheism Tapes: Steven Weinberg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zyLbM76n6Q


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheism_Tapes

    Link above lists the other guests (which I haven't seen yet)


  • #2339
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Ancient Apocalypse
    Sodom and Gomorrah
    Were Sodom and Gomorrah real cities, destroyed by a landslide caused by an earthquake? (R) on BBC4 NOW.
    The Bible describes how Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in a storm of fire and brimstone. Could the inspiration for this story come from a natural apocalypse around the Dead Sea in the Middle East? Science tests out the extraordinary geology of the region - could an earthquake trigger a landslide capable of sweeping away whole cities?


  • #2340
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    578008_10150751263385658_270212045657_9976722_647699524_n.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #2341
    sonicthebadger*
    Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Why stop there - Caligula married his horse didn't he?

    An argument often used against gay marriage too. The old slippery slope, if we let people marry whatever adult(s) they want they'll start marrying chairs and horses and moons and killing babies and... yeah, not really.


  • #2342
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    A 150 gigapixel image that represents LESS than 1% of our GALAXY, NOT universe.

    7124516455_e96136074b_b.jpg

    Click for full size

    Wow

    204264.png

    And it was made just for us.... :rolleyes:


  • #2343
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,782 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    And it was made just for us.... :rolleyes:

    And it was already posted a week ago...:P


  • #2344
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And it was already posted a week ago...:P

    That's not possible the universe was created just last Thursday.


  • #2345
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,518 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    It's full of stars!


  • #2346
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And it was already posted a week ago...:P
    Hey man! A week is like, a really long time ago!! Besides, my post was waaaayy better. I bolded and capitalized "galaxy" for extra emphasis and even added a screen shot of two pretty stars for everyone to see, and then I finished with an ironic quip.

    In fact, you should probably just go ahead and delete your post... :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #2347
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Hey man! A week is like, a really long time ago!!

    Maybe to you. Get back to me in 14 Billion years :p


  • #2348
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Jake: Math prodigy proud of his autism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR36jrx_L44


    I like the fact that he enjoys helping others, and wants to tackle the 'fear of maths', common to most people. And fair play to the parents for helping their son realise his potential.


  • #2349
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    ^ Was that Bill Cosby interviewing the autistic boy? I thought he used to be black :)

    tumblr_m3giqnZaZP1qzc2fmo1_400.jpg


  • #2350
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    recedite wrote: »
    ^ Was that Bill Cosby interviewing the autistic boy? I thought he used to be black :)

    tumblr_m3giqnZaZP1qzc2fmo1_400.jpg

    The interviewer is ancient isn't he? After reading the top comment on Youtube, I found him rather distracting, . . . . not to sound insensitive.


  • #2351
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Powers of persuasion?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXcYelsiCm0


  • Advertisement
Advertisement