Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I assume so, although it should be noted that even that doesn't predate the international Jewish banking conspiracy.
The international Jewish banking conspiracy theory pretty much predates *banking*, at least if you consider it linked to the pre-Crusade pogroms/shake-downs of the late eleventh century, which were premised along much the same lines.
-
it is clear Britain doesn't want New Zealand-style MMP," [Hunt] said.
I'm not sure how they can tell that without, well, asking.
-
A man who is passionate about something and articulate about sharing that passion is remarkably sexy though. I don't have to share his passion (yet) so long as I can see how one might get to love that thing.
It does depend somewhat on the thing. As demonstrated ably by a good-looking young man of my acquaintance whose passionate speeches are largely based around the finer details of power supplies. Other engineers' eyes glaze over, let alone the rest of us.
-
So here's a twist - Gordon Brown has, in fact, thrown himself on his sword in an attempt to woo the LibDems.
The question is, with the Tories offering a referendum on AV, will it work?
-
New election day twist RT @SkyNewsBreak Sky News sources: light aircraft carrying UKIP MEP leader Nigel Farage crashes in Northants.
Apparently he was only lightly injured.
They are something, though, aren't they? Given their basic "Europe bad!" approach, though, I suspect their turnout as MEPs would be severely diminished in a proportional British Parliament election, where there would be less of a point to make. If "screw you, Brussels!" can be considered a point.
(I did, however, like the brutal honesty of the candidate who, when asked why he wanted to be an MP, said if he'd wanted to be an MP he wouldn't have stood for UKIP.)
-
The BBC Friday Night Comedy Podcast is currently running four days a week (severely impacting on my productivity) running the Vote Now Show. This is basically how I get all my information on the British elections.
I hold to this method of information-gathering such that I didn't actually know what the "Yew-kip"* thing they were referring to was until someone spelled it out in the Guardian's (also excellent) Science Weekly podcast. But looking it up would have ruined the fun.
*UKIP. Viscount Monckton is their science spokesperson. No, I didn't think I needed to say any more.
-
The link from RB turns up what looks like Sunday News. Which is which now? I'm so confused..
It's a NZPA article; it's appeared word-for-word (though occasionally abridged) on the TVNZ, Sunday News, and NZ Herald websites. The Herald on Sunday caught my ire because, well, I wouldn't know where to start complaining to the NZPA and I've at least laid eyes on a copy of the Herald.
-
All of you should write a letter. Surely, if you can write a post here you write a couple of sentences and email them off.
The Herald on Sunday, which I presume published this article, just got an extremely stiff letter from me. I doubt it will get reprinted in its entirety, especially the bit where I told them to make all their reporters read Bad Science, but it felt extremely satisfying to lambast them as they deserved to be.
-
Safe to say that's downright dishonest and hardly accidental. Who's writing the letter to the editor?
It's an NZPA article that seems to have been reprinted by at least two papers, so that's editors, plural.
-
You have to actually read the story to find that the sweeping claim is based on three batches of six plants grown under optimum conditions by ESR scientists, two of them involving Red Devil, a modern pure indica strain.
Oh, and they seem to have got their "four times stronger" figure by comparing the average strength from their seventies study (6%) to the highest figure in their range of figures from the current study (4-25%). 25% is roughly 4 times 6%, but...it ain't the average. You have to go all the way to the boittom of the article to find an average quoted (11%, for outdoor-grown cannabis) which is less than twice as strong as the 6% baseline.
IIRC, Ben Goldacre covered similar "studies" in his book, in Britain - they did precisely the same thing, comparing the previous average to the modern high point. It's thoroughly ridiculous.
Especially the bit where they claim, in the NZ article, that the yields were so variable because the scientists didn't know how to grow cannabis properly. Because, of course, it must be so difficult to get instructions on how to do that - it's not like there was, ooooh, I don't know, some shop the police knew of they could go and ask at...