PatrickC

Yes, it's all the recent terrorism that has no doubt encouraged his thinking. The intelligence agencies have no doubt had their eye on encryption for a while now. This was probably their moment to suggest it to him at one of their recent COBRA sessions. But like Shirgall suggests, they'll try to appear as though they will water it down, after 'so called' debate. These guy are entirely predictable. It's interesting to note mind. I wonder that if it wasn't for Snowden blowing the lid on all the intelligence surveillance, whether Cameron would have been so brave as to suggest this sort of thing now. Difficult to tell how a pre Snowden world would have reacted of course.

I recall a lot of discussion on the board around the topic of 'preferred' and 'preferable' around the time of first publishing UPB. Can't find the thread now at all. But as far as I recall Stef reached a suitable conclusion on the difference between them. As to how helpful that that is in finding a suitable translation, is difficult tell. Another way to resolve this perhaps, is to see whether you can contact any Russian/English linguistic university professors. They might be kind enough to give you a translation of the title at least.

Ha ha, I was thinking more a garden shed filled to brimming with power tools..

This is a little off topic perhaps, but I like the idea of male only spaces. Certainly there can be some arseholes amongst them, but I think the male tendency to not pussyfoot around other men a useful quest in discovering some enlightenment.

Yes, I wasn't impressed by this movie. I stacked it up as a choice for the film club, as a means to tearing the whole movie theme to shreds, but Interstellar was the favourite at the time. I'm still in two minds whether to still do this in any future show.

I found this rather interesting article regarding the 80/20 ratio. http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/

Yes, I think the economic (welfare) drivers are fairly recent. They certainly exacerbate the situation, but the drivers for this stat have always been there to one degree or another. But it's certainly worse than ever before for men. Men have always had to prove themselves to women. This was of course a lot easier when the economy was less regulated and even working class men could find suitable employment that gave them enough income to buy a small house and keep a family of 3 kids and a spouse in relative comfort. This class of men have now been almost entirely usurped by welfare. These days even lower/middle class families struggle to avoid some govt handouts. Young men rarely get a sniff at promotion in the corporate sector until their mid 30's and youngsters can barely get their foot in the door due to minimum wage restrictions. As engardeknave reminds us, all too often the corporate sector rewards younger women above their male counterparts and women seem to excel in the public sector, whilst the men are noticeably absent. All in all it means men have had to become ever more resourceful in an ever decreasing and more restrictive environment. It's why you see a lot of men in their 30's+ moving to the far east. Despite the (hysterical) claims they go there for the cheap sex, they mainly go there looking for work, less regulations and a more affordable cost of living.

Our next Meet up will be this coming Saturday 17 January. Candid Cafe, Torrens Street behind Angel Tube station (Northern Line) in Islington (North London) meeting at 12pm. PM me for a mobile number. Otherwise join the Facebook event below. https://www.facebook.com/events/1582187252016600/

This is the London meet up Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/1438425056435291/ If you're not a part of Facebook, then keep an eye on this post, which I regularly update. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41769-london-uk-meet-up/?hl=%2Blondon+%2Bmeet This is the post updated by the Yorkshire meet up group too. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41761-a-yorkshire-meetup-anyone/?hl=%2Blondon+%2Bmeet

Great idea Matt!

Here is the livestream Youtube Here is the link to the Google+ live stream where you can interact with the show via the Q&A application https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/117472908323246912161/events/c2fbnp9h8mstah4gq7kva53sip0

Ok, so we have decided on who the callers will be now and have contacted them all personally. So you can look forward to a jam packed hour and a half show later on today as we discuss Interstellar. It's ok, as it wont be clashing with today's scheduled FDR call in show. I will post the YouTube stream below this post for your listening, as well as provide a separate link to the Google+ stream in which you can make comments via the attached Q&A app available only for this particular stream. We shall be checking periodically for your comments throughout the show. So feel free to give us your thoughts about the movie including our own take on the movie too. Do you agree, disagree. Did we miss something? We'll be happy to hear them.

Yes, I see all this as the left having taken the higher moral ground with decidedly poor arguments. Culturally we are so devoid of rational ethics that the lefts take on them can often seem as the most reasonable to those without any philosophical grounding. To the fanatics, you merely have to change the identity around from black to white or man to woman to point out the inconsistencies. Not that they will accept them, but at least you will know how intellectually dishonest they really are.

Yes, it's true that the programming, which could well come from an irrational place, as in men shouldn't hit women because they are snowflakes or wilting violets even. That once into manhood, they may find the women of their history contemptible enough to punish all women as a result. Is that what you meant kevin?

Well there in lies the irony of course. These boys have clearly been programmed that hitting women (as a man) is a bad thing. Which should suggest that it's unusual that men as adults should suddenly decide differently of course.

Yes, the irony I find with all this, is that it doesn't seem to compute the degree to which men actually protect women. It's seems to suggest that something (what exactly, is never explained) negative occurs between boys coming out of childhood and entering manhood. And as MMX suggests, why not test this experiment on the girls too. Although I have to say, that I have a rather bad taste about such experiments. Given the results of the Milgram experiments, if it were to actually encourage children to hit each other.

I think mostly men have a highly developed sense of humour compared to women. As Hitchins was also noted to say, 'we already find you attractive, thanks'. It's probably been tempered in recent years, largely because of all the snowflakes that are seemingly easily offended and can actually make a man's life very difficult as a result of his humour or the lack thereof (as a women might find it). Probably another reason men these days seem drawn to body building and are more body conscious than ever before. It's probably a safer spot for men to develop their attractiveness to women. That and as you suggest, financial security too.

I'll be honest yagami, I'm not sure I understand your point. I understand they're all kinds of people hiding behind anonymity as a means to 'act out' on all kinds of forums and people on the internet. The argument would be, 'to what degree is this occurring'? Or even better, 'compared to what'? I'd personally say it was limited to banter and any arguments to the contrary, are mostly the exaggerated complaints of 'snowflakes', white knights and those like Sarkeesian seeking some kind of career and resources from them.

Giving the post above a bump for those that are unaware of the show this coming Saturday. This will be our fourth show now. As a teaser for our future discussion in February we shall now be discussing The Matrix.

I'm glad you said that, as I was about to choke on my waffle!

I used to run an internet cafe, back when you could actually make money on it. And we had a rather large Counterstrike clan that laughingly now we put in the basement of the shop. I always remember whenever a woman showed interest, they would fall over themselves to help her. To be honest, I only ever had to calm them down when there cheering or jeering reached crescendo levels that started to disturb our regular customers on the ground floor. However, it was mostly friendly banter and I never recall any misogyny.

Well no, enforcement involves taking something from someone. Shunning someone if they don't follow through with a chosen obligation doesn't involve any action at all. That said, I'm sure there might well be businesses that will still do business with them, but probably at a higher cost, due to their prior risk of failing to comply. For things to get to this point would be probably considered quite serious. As I'm absolutely certain that negotiations could remedy any outright and total shunning. Even today people want to find a solution to a failing company they are doing business with, because they wont to see through their already sunk costs. The trouble with today is that people can just go bankrupt and ignore their obligations under Limited company status.

"For most men, if they can't make a women laugh. They're out of the evolutionary contest. They're just never gonna get laid." Christopher Hitchins - 2008

I don't know, but I guess a bigger advert could well equate to a bigger audience.

Hannah I think you should remove the banana from your name. Nothing bananas about your arguments. Unless it's your real surname, then oops, for shame. (nothing to see here)