En Passant

Sure but an estimation is not a calculation. I do not believe that Drake's equation can be used with any degree of certainty to assume that there is only one species of intelligent life per galaxy, it could be none, it could be many more.

Ah yes, I've seen that of course, but so many of the variables are completely unquantifiable so much so that whilst still being used it's subject to a lot of variation and indeed criticism. It works as a starting point, but I would't use it personally as a counter-argument to the fermi paradox :S ETA: this one in particular fp = 0.2 to 0.5 (one fifth to one half of all stars formed will have planets No exoplanets at all had been confirmed at the time Drake wrote his equation. So that number could only be described as extremely speculative, since 1988 or so that's no longer the case. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the equation is wrong, simply that it's not definitive.

Yes and no, as far as I can tell. The distances are almost inconceivably huge, and that indeed was my first thought - it's just too far. However as a result of my extensive research (a bit of googling in an absent hour or so) I was reminded that time involved is also inconceivably long on a human scale. So even allowing for the limit of light speed, there should have been some evidence - Von Neumann probes amongst other things. I'd be interested to see this calculation though, since there is zero credible evidence of any life at all other than ourselves, how can anyone claim to have an accurate calculation for the number of intelligent species per galaxy?

Complete sceptic about any form of UFO myself (well, the extraterrestrial kind anyway) However I have done some reading on the Fermi paradox and here is an interesting treatise as to why it would be bad news to discover any form of life on mars.

I'm not sure I've got how the sequence in your previous post quite works out yet, still working my head around that. But this? No problem.

It's not that my mind is usually a sewer, but now that you highlighted the swallowing thing I'd definitely prefer to visualize one of those chocolates.

Seems to me that whatever the validity of those particular numbers, people don't generally bother to get out of bed on a cold winters day to protest when something is going their way - so comparing them directly is a bit moot.

Nice pictures. I wasn't really serious about Newcastle, I've avoided the place on reputation up til now and enticing as a 5am moon viewing is....

Is it just me waiting for him to get wiped out by a speeding Ford Capri at the end of that ad? Ok, maybe it is, seen too many parodies.

Well, I'm going to Newcastle for that one then. Because I was in Oxford for the one this summer and ended up walking half a mile trying to remove houses and trees from my line of sight, never did, and damn near fell in the canal at Iffley lock in the attempt.

I was trying to think of something witty or amusing to convey my appreciation of this sentiment. But right now I'm out of ideas so I'll have to settle for.... I fucking detest 'featuring'. Absolute bollocks. Example: Rockwells' early 80's hit "Somebody's watching me". Love it or hate it, it succeeded (or would have failed) standing on it's own merits (within reason, a lot of music requires some promotion and airplay). What is perhaps less well known is that it had Michael (and Jermaine) Jackson on backing vocals. Today the marketing goons couldn't avoid adding the godawful 'featuring Michael Jackson'.

Oh come on, she's got history for extremely well informed comment on a variety of topics that have nothing to do with cooking.

Worse, it's just you. Well to be fair, @Deathray has the same problem, but for different reasons.

I'm of the opinion that at least some of them went the other way.

Only skimmed this thread, and haven't read all the posts or names, but if it fills a gap, Sumner Redstone. If I got the rules, the names or something else wrong, sorry

1. QE 2* 2. Kenny Rogers* 3. Linda Nolan 4. Jill Gascoine 5. Clive James* 6. John McCririck 7. Fernando Ricksen 8. Pierre Cardin 9. Bob Dole 10. Leah Bracknell *September.

a,b,c,d,e. I'm surprised anyone that stupid can recite the first five letters of the alphabet in order without screwing it up. d,a,f,t c,u,n,t.

Aye and Barista for a bloke who works a coffee machine. Customer: "I'd like a tea please" Maitre'd*: "I'm sorry sir. perhaps you'd like a coffee from the barista or a wine from the sommelier? Unfortunately it's the bampot's day off. *Don't even start me.

The mannequin would be a better driver.

Not going to happen. The man is a shameless self-promoter and believer in the adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity, though in my view the 'diver is a paedo' thing looks like an attempt at the exception that proves the rule.

The same as everyone else then? You got a mulligan, be happy

For the discerning follower of this 'sport' there's a list on which this guy will soon be #359. ETA: For those like me who wonder why on earth they do it... The 'father of base' was a man called Carl Boenish (yes really), There's a recent'ish documentary about him called 'Sunshine Superman' that's worth a watch if you're curious, though I don't have a link to any legal stream of it. He appears at #7 on that list. There was also a channel 4 documentary in the Cutting Edge series in 2010 featuring Britains premier proponent, an Essex Roofer named Dan Witchells. This is available on you tube here.

No. Legalise the lot. The harm done by the pursuit of 'illegal' drug taking is worse than the 'taking' of those drugs. Convince me otherwise chap.

Society, and the laws enacted by it are *supposed* to benefit the majority of members. Drug laws as they stand, in my view, do not. Simplistic as that may be. Agree or not, you are worth arguing with Sharon. ; )

Trouble is mate, whilst you and I agree on a number of things , this isn't one (it appears). I don't use drugs aside from alcohol, caffeine and nicotine (passim from fags, now a vape). However, in my view the harm done to society in general by the pursuit of 'illegal' drug users by plod (and by definition parliament that makes the laws) outweighs the harm done by individuals *to themselves* taking said drugs. All the violence, locked up dealers, locked up users etc...would disappear overnight. Do I think people should take drugs? Probably not. Do I think their criminalisation causes WAY more problems than it solves? You betcha. And that's kind of the point. I don't get locked up for 3 drugs, mentioned above, but other drugs, they're all derived from plants... who decides?