1. Comment #444908 by Noodly on December 27, 2009 at 11:11 pm

There goes my bank holiday lie in!

Actually, I can stay in bed and listen as long as the wife doesn't complain.

Other Comments by Noodly

2. Comment #444950 by louis14 on December 28, 2009 at 7:46 am

Hurray! I'm on a drive from Hampshire to Wales this morning - I'll definitely be tuning in.

Other Comments by louis14

3. Comment #444951 by Shiva on December 28, 2009 at 7:51 am

Guess that's a nice way to start my birthday ;D

Other Comments by Shiva

4. Comment #445036 by Stafford Gordon on December 28, 2009 at 2:43 pm

It's a good edition; for anyone interested who missed it, it can be found at: www.bbc.co.uk/listenagain.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

5. Comment #445090 by danhayes on December 28, 2009 at 7:50 pm

MP3 available here:

http://www.4shared.com/dir/19899105/34a764f2/sharing.html

http://blog.anti-theist.co.uk

Other Comments by danhayes

6. Comment #445149 by decius on December 29, 2009 at 1:35 am

I don't really like the pinball format of this broadcast. Way too many disjoint topics chosen seemingly at random, each deserving deeper consideration, and resulting in a cascade of tiny inputs that leave little substantial behind.

Considered the constraints, Richard did well.

Other Comments by decius

7. Comment #445153 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 29, 2009 at 1:51 am

I'm in the middle of "Infidel." I just got through the part where the author talks about taking a stand in the Netherlands and commenting on blind respect for other cultures and religion. Richard talks about this phenomenon in this interview. It's so unPC to say it, but I'm glad some people are taking a stand.

I immediately think of a camp that I worked at where this nut didn't like having his picture taken because it "takes away a piece of the soul." Oh, but see, it's the belief of an oppressed minority (Native American, though this guy was white) so it automatically must be respected... even more so than if it were a WASP belief!

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

8. Comment #445156 by Steve Zara on December 29, 2009 at 2:42 am

Comment #445153 by InYourFaceNewYorker

Forgive me, but this is a thing that I get mildly concerned about.

I really don't think that PC is about blind respect for other cultures or religion. It's about making blind disrespect unacceptable. Or at least it should be. It should be about finding jokes and remarks about race, gender, sexuality and even, sometimes, culture and religion uncivilized and inappropriate.

I fully support attacks on religious doctrines that ruin people's lives, and I have no hesitation in dissecting religious beliefs.

But I don't see that as connected with political correctness. I think it is a much-abused term. PC is often attacked as describing a left-wing pandering to religious and cultural groups, ignoring human rights abuses so as not to "offend", it has also been used to describe right-wing authoritarian pressure for people not to use certain language in times of conflict (such as "freedom fries" as against "French fries").

Personally, I see PC as this: Do your best not to make fun of someone, or verbally abuse someone, based on their attributes which are more a matter of accident of birth than personal choice. But, human rights come first, and not all cultures and moral frameworks are created equal.

Rant over.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #445206 by flying goose on December 29, 2009 at 8:44 am

I miss Melvyn Bragg, for this programme. To think they made him quit just because he became a Labour Peer.

Richard, as always was great.

Like the line about simplicity and complexity.

Other Comments by flying goose

10. Comment #445209 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 29, 2009 at 9:57 am

Steve Zara,

I'm talking about political correctness that's over the edge. Of course a certain amount of political correctness is good.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

11. Comment #445211 by flying goose on December 29, 2009 at 10:58 am

InYourFaceNewYorker


If someone does not want to have their photo taken, that is their right. Their reasons are immaterial.

It is the photographer who has to give reasons for overriding their right to privacy.

Other Comments by flying goose

12. Comment #445212 by Vaal on December 29, 2009 at 11:34 am

Flying Goose:

As an amateur photographer, I am a bit concerned about the "rights" of people not to be photographed. Agreed, that "in your face photography" and the vile paparazzi phenomenon is an unwelcome violation of peoples privacy, but to hamstring the superb photography of great artists, catching the human condition, the pathos, grief, joy of humanity would be an unacceptable loss.

I was at Herstmonceux in 2004, watching the very rare transit of Venus across the sun, and took some pictures of the projection of the sun onto a large screen, with Venus looking like a large blot on the sun, when I was approached later by an irate woman who accused me of taking pictures of her children (who happened to be near the projection), without her permission. To be honest, I hadn't even noticed them, but, later, on reflection, I realised she was practically accusing me of being a paeodophile. I have to admit that the world seemed a smaller place after that day.

I do prefer natural photography myself, but it is rare to be able to take a picture without somebody in it. I am even thinking of getting a T-shirt made up with "No, I am not taking pictures of your vile offspring", should I be out with my camera :-)

It has come to a point now where my sister is not even allowed to take a camera to take pictures of her children at school sports day. That would have been inconceivable in my youth, and I now regard it as an outrageous intrusion into peoples personal lives by a big-brother government.

Other Comments by Vaal

13. Comment #445216 by flying goose on December 29, 2009 at 12:05 pm

Vaal of course you are right. Whilst I do not to run the risk of helping to derail this thread I will add this. I suppose it depends on the context.
If IYFNY's 'nut' was just standing around in the background of a photo or say part of an activity like a play or whatever being photographed, then his or her place in the picture is incidental. If said person was asked to pose and did not want to, then I am with the so called 'nut'.

Other Comments by flying goose

14. Comment #445217 by Tyler Durden on December 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm

"M'lud, it wasn't my fault, it was my genes done it... M'lud, it was my molecules did it... My arms did it." - RD

lol, very droll Richard :)

(How can they keep calling you "strident"?)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

15. Comment #445220 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Flying Goose,

Of course I wouldn't take someone's picture if they didn't want to, but the whole "it takes away your soul" is still a stupid reason. I respect his right not to be photographed, just not the reason. Anyway, that is only the tip of the iceberg as to why I refer to him as a nut.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

16. Comment #445222 by Tyler Durden on December 29, 2009 at 1:17 pm

flying goose -

I'm also an amateur photographer (but not a lawyer) so I've had experience of this, especially on the streets of NYC where I lived (but not on the streets) and worked for well over a year, as well as multiple trips there as a snap-happy tourist.

I've had numerous experiences of random New Yorkers complaining to me about my photography subjects - which is normally "natural-street-style" - but I'm simply taking shots of buildings, bridges or random street scene X.

What they don't realise is that they are part of the public domain as it were, (I also had Vaal's experience of mother complaining about her kids being in the shot), and have no legal stance (as far as I know) about being "captured" in a random shot.

They may ask for it to be deleted but my intent was not to shoot them per se, they are part of the background, or were simply in the way. In other words, they're just nutjobs with waay too much time on their hands, or feel way too self-important.

I once had one nutjob try to block me from taking a shot of the Empire State Building because my angle took in part of a playground/residential area - my intent was to shoot the ESB, her intent was to be a pain in the ass!!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

17. Comment #445225 by flying goose on December 29, 2009 at 1:25 pm

points taken, yes the world has mad. Perhaps I live so far out in the sticks that people don't mind photo's on sports day, school plays etc.

Any way lets talk about Richard's stunning performance on 'Start the Week'.



(They really should get Melvyn back)


oops! Not falling in that one.


Carry on.

Other Comments by flying goose

18. Comment #445226 by epeeist on December 29, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Comment #445212 by Vaal:

I was at Herstmonceux in 2004, watching the very rare transit of Venus across the sun, and took some pictures of the projection of the sun onto a large screen, with Venus looking like a large blot on the sun, when I was approached later by an irate woman who accused me of taking pictures of her children (who happened to be near the projection), without her permission.

Get her to call the police, she hasn't a leg to stand on since it was in a public place.

In your camera bag carry a copy of the guide that can be found here - http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

It has come to a point now where my sister is not even allowed to take a camera to take pictures of her children at school sports day. That would have been inconcievable in my youth, and I now regard as an outrageous intrusion into peoples personal lives by a big-brother government.

It is control freakery, but I blame the likes of the Direly Maul as much as the government.

Other Comments by epeeist

19. Comment #445241 by Vaal on December 29, 2009 at 2:07 pm

Thanks for that epeeist. I will carry a copy of that. Very handy.

Get her to call the police, she hasn't a leg to stand on since it was in a public place

Do you know, I was so shocked by her reaction, that it never even occurred to me.

Flying Goose: You should see some of Tylers work. Spectacular.

Sorry to derail, but I think this is a very important topic. Back to subject... :)

Other Comments by Vaal

20. Comment #445269 by bluebird on December 29, 2009 at 6:00 pm

Good radio program; an auditory tapas bar of interesting topics/opinions, so to speak.

Tonight (Tues. 29th) PBS airs "What Darwin Never Knew", looks great!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/darwin-never-knew.html

Other Comments by bluebird

21. Comment #445317 by Reckless Monkey on December 30, 2009 at 12:20 am

Hi for those outside of the UK and hence with BBC iplayer issues. You can either subcribe to the program via RSS which then allows you to download the MP3 directly or download from here

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/stw/stw_20091228-0945a.mp3

On windows go to file save page as and it'll download as an mp3.

which is the RSS page.

For people with limited knowledge of RSS. RSS means Really Simple Syndication can is a way of browsing a website for new content without searching. When you subscribe via RSS (free) it attaches an icon to your tool bar in your browser or in your bookmarks (you choose) and then you click on the icon and all the stories come up without having to go into and searching the website. Podcasts came out of RSS. Because RSS can be text, webpage, or Media files. So you can subcribe to podcasts/ vodcasts using RSS aggregation software like Juice or Itunes (free). I know I'm probably preaching to the choir here but every now and then someone has to make these things explicit.

Other Comments by Reckless Monkey

22. Comment #445327 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 30, 2009 at 1:25 am

Tyler Durden--

My point was that this guy, Jasper (not his real name), who likely would have otherwise been comfortable having his picture taken, didn't want it taken because of that bullshit about it taking away one's soul.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

23. Comment #445344 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 30, 2009 at 3:55 am

I also want to comment on what Richard said about genetics and determinism. This is something I have wondered quite a bit about. Maybe I'm just not understanding, but I get the impression that some genetic components have a stronger impact than others.

For example, the scientific consensus is that gender identity (as well as sexual orientation) is hardwired at birth, and no amount of "therapy" can change it. Is this perhaps so strong because it's a combination of hormone exposure and genes (hell, an entire chromosome perhaps) that come into play? What about people who are transgender? For example, an XY male who has a solid female gender identity. Does this means that hormones are more powerful than the chromosomes at work? Or are there other genes that contribute?

What about sociopaths? Scientists are finding that NOTHING WORKS in "repairing" people with antisocial personality disorder. They are simply not hardwired to feel empathy (brain image studies have confirmed this) and at best they can only pretend to feel empathy. They're such good liars and that's why they can cover their tracks so easily. Eric Harris, one of the Columbine killers, is thought to have been a sociopath. He had had a lot of people fooled.

Perhaps the above examples cannot be changed because they affect the brain on a global level (do they? I really know so little about genetics and how it affects personality!), whereas other genetic components-- such as talents, perhaps-- possibly affect the brain on a more "local" level?

What about talents? Talents are thought to have a genetic component. I have little doubt that this is true. My brother, for example, rarely draws (only when to make silly birthday cards) but he draws VERY well for somebody who gets no practice. Same with my father. In fact, my father's side of the family has quite a few people who are visual and good with their hands. They are either mechanically inclined, artistically inclined, or both. Incidentally I wonder if the same genes responsible for talent in engineering abilities play a role in artistic ability.

And how about how Richard's father was a botanist, and his daughter is in medical school? Are there genetic components for talents--as well as interests--in sciences (or any other field for that matter)? Would these people be interested and talented in science without the influence of their parents? How much do environmental factors come into play?

But what about people are don't seem to be born with such talents but are so determined to develop them that eventually they do, even though it means working much harder than others born with the talents? I have heard stories of people essentially "rewiring" their brains for certain talents (or maybe that's an exaggeration of what is actually happening)? If this is the case, then why are things like gender identity and sexual orientation unable to be "rewired?"

Again, I know very little about this subject, so I'm just making guesses. Thoughts, anybody? Book recommendations?

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

24. Comment #445543 by SaintStephen on December 30, 2009 at 7:13 pm

What a great interview. The Good Professor in top form! So alive, so upbeat, so eloquent, and his words equally suffused with clarity, subtle nuance, devilish wit, and of course, vast intelligence.

Well done, Professor.

The discussion on cognitive enhancers was fascinating.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

25. Comment #445631 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 31, 2009 at 1:45 am

Agreed. I wished that someone would have mentioned the studies about ADD often being misdiagnosed when the real culprit is poor nutrition and lack of exercise. There are, of course, real cases of ADD that need to be addressed through medication, but not nearly as many as people think.

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker