ChezGiven

I already flagged this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/spd/9523904/Sports-Direct-shareholders-reject-share-incentive-scheme-for-Mike-Ashley.html I was already aware of his shareholding but i still went ahead and posted that 'perhaps the SD board are willing to pay more than Virgin?' because owning 70% of shares doesnt mean you can do absolutely anything you want.

The Sports Direct board will need convincing to put their money into Ashley's personal project that he has managed so badly so far. After all, at the last AGM they scrapped the vote on his share package as they knew it would be defeated. Just because Ashley owns 70% of SD doesnt mean he takes the decisions.

Is he? I would doubt that for a PLC, which is why i said that. You can read the articles of association for yourself to clarify if you want. http://media.sportsdirectplc.com/App_Media/SportsDirect/pdfs/DraftArticles2010.pdf

Means the Sports Direct board have been convinced to pay more than VIrgin?

Playing The Muppets as a wedding song My mate made an introduction to his wedding reception to U2's With or Without You. Which i thought was a brave move.

Can you hear mine? They are loud enough spazz-hand.

Aye, Gemmill is the exception that proves the rule that people are sounder in real life than they are on the board.

One lad says we beat Man U at the weekend, when its pointed out he confused us with Spurs he says something about 'smoking in the tropics' which is likely a reference to weed smoking. The lad then replies (i think), 'meal washed down with rum and cheap plonk and just like that, you're talking shit - these English all look the same to me.' I think there was a very mild racist element but only playing on the 'they all look the same to me' idea. Not sure they are calling us fat cunts. FYI - According to the Sunday Times yesterday, we've got bigger cocks than them so if you do sign up, make that your sig.

I've always appreciated CT, you dont need to be an expert to have valid opinions (although it does help )

:lol:

Rose's birdie on the 17th to win the hole was immense but Poulter is the man.

Unbelievable day on the couch. German held his nerve obviously!

Tense stuff this.

It was a point about luck, not performance.

That new Wild Nothing album is lush like, was a big fan of Gemini too.

Hungover with the taste of kebab still in my mouth. Went to the 1516 Brewing company in Vienna, the beers were lush, one was a Slovenian IPA that had been matured in whiskey casks. Meant to be at a conference this morning but skiving until I am in a fit enough state to meet people. Uurgh.

Good example geology, the use of experimental testing is done through samples, in this case rock samples, which through a vast series of hypotheses lead to a conclusion of glacial formation. You can design 1000s of experiments using complex techniques to analyse 1000s of samples and in this way arrive at the conclusion. Those samples provide you with enough data to test the hypothesis, if you select samples at random you have your experimental designn. Glacial formation is a testable hypothesis, evolution is not. Popper said that Evolution is not a scientific fact, it's a metaphysical research programme Economics is a poor science, far too political and is only just, as a mainstream topic, catching up with sub-disciplines like health economics that have adopted and adapted clinical trial methods (state transition matrices are based directly on trial data and are therefore of the highest scientific standard). Given the uncertainty introduced by the non clinical variables, practitioners still consider the models as decision making heuristics.

Then how else do your prove it? How else does something theoretical come to be accepted as knowledge? What is knowledge in that case, the ability to make a strong argument? We acquire knowledge by testing hypotheses, evolution is the only branch of science that isn't really testable. Even the Higgs Boson is tested in experimental design. Until you prove the existence of God, it's just a belief system. Until you prove evolution its not a fact. Strictly adhering to the Popperian model alows us to differentiate between 'likely based on what we know' and 'what we know'. That said Popper's evolutionary epistemology is the most profound thing I have ever read.

Sleep tight!

I just think lispism is such a double whammy for the sufferers.

On the iPad, their site is rubbish. I am wearing just my underpants though.

Indeed.

in a 5 star hotel actually in lake Neuchatel in Switzerland for the record. http://www.palafitte.ch/hp/index.php?lang=en Yes, I meant 'in' the lake.

Chemo usually refers to cytotoxics which have been around for decades. The most common chemo comes from the yew tree (paclitaxel), the millions spent are on treatments like herceptin which are not chemotherapy. A modern form of cancer therapy is anti-angiogenesis. when tumours grow they need blood to feed them oxygen, if only one small blood vessel is attached to a tumour then as the tumour grows, the blood vessel will be too small to provide it with oxygen. When the tissue cells in the tumour become starved of oxygen they go into a state of hypoxia. Your heart does this when you get narrowed arteries. Both the heart and the tumour are part of you and therefore have the same genetic code, they therefore both are programmed to release vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF) when they experience a lack of oxygen. These growth factors are resposible for the observed angiogenesis, I.e. the growth of new blood vessels to feed the tumour (and this happens in the cardio vascular system, new blood vessels grow round the narrowing arteries). VEGF inhibitors stop the growth factors of the tumour producing new blood vessels. These drugs are therefore not chemo as they don't kill (cytotoxic) the tumour but stop it from growing (cytostatic). You give these drugs to people in controlled randomized studies and they live longer than people who get other stuff. That's science mate.

Team not arsed.