Area54

Senior Members
  • Content count

    696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Area54

  1. The Baddest Bridge Near You

    If we are talking bridges we have to include the three Forth bridges. (Will there ever be a fourth Forth?) Furthest is the iconic cantilevered rail bridge. Next the 1964 suspension road bridge whose construction I followed avidly via regular local TV News items. (It was for many years the longest suspension bridge in the world outside of the USA.) Closest is the newly opened Queensferry Crossing.
  2. Hardest word for you to spell

    liaison embarrass. (Until I found it so embarrassing to get it wrong I made sure I knew it) rhythm Some years ago I was asked to show a senior VP a PowerPoint presentation I had delivered at a recent technical meeting. The title slide was something like "New Product Sucess". "You've misspelled success" he said immediately. Since attack is the best form of defence, I responded "I may not know how to spell it sir, but I do know how to achieve it! As you will see."
  3. NY files suit against oil companies.

    There is no need to get uppity. Your message was not previously clear. So, this really is my final point: we've known for decades what oil consumption was doing to the environment. Our contiinued commitment to an energy hungry lifestyle can no longer be blamed on Big Oil. It is accounted for by our own inherent selfishness. If it somehow ease your conscious to pretend it "wasn't your fault" then you are every bit as much a part of the problem as BIg Oil, arguably bigger. (But know I won't be troubling to make that argument.)
  4. NY files suit against oil companies.

    Where did you get this from? I'm not here to argue strawmen. If my position was poorly expressed then I am at a loss, since I've tried repeatedly to clarify it. 1. In what way was I acting in good faith? I have been conscious to a greater or lesser extent that my choices of consumption impacted upon the environment from at least my late teens. I have made no mention of "acting in good faith". I have reread each of my posts in this thread and nowhere do I see an implication that I "acted in good faith". 2. I largely ignored everything Big Oil said, since they were clearly biased. However you are correct in one thing. Big Oil and I were doing exactly the same thing: knowlingly injuring the enivornment through our actions. Is that OK? No, of course it isn't. But I and you and pretty much every person, posting here or lurking here (With, I hope, a couple of honourable exceptions) is screwing up the environment and rarely doing much more than lip service to correct it. The difference between you and I appears to be that I accept my guilt. You seem to want to transfer yours. @EdEarl Great that you are driving a hydrid. Even better that it is one you have kept operating for a decade and a half. However, you are still driving. So, yes, I shall continue to rail against you. Not nearly as strongly as I rail against myself, but evolution doesn't look so good when what you need is revolution.
  5. NY files suit against oil companies.

    And I specifically addressed this in my first post in the thread when I said: " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption." I had nothing further to add. My point was made: hold the oil companies to account; don't ignore our own responsibility. All of my subsequent posts have been clarifications made necessary by posts addressing those comments, or my later replies. I'll repeat my first remark again, then leave the last word to others. " No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption."
  6. NY files suit against oil companies.

    Then we seem unable to agree. It is about me (And you, and everyone else.) My philosophy prohibits me from blaming others for those things for which I am responsible. That is fundamental for me. It is open to modification, but nothing said in this thread has even dented it's outer shell. And I have, at no point said or suggested that the oil companies should not also be held to account. Simply do not use them as an excuse for our own questionable behaviour. @Phi for All My response above addresses generically, if not specifically, those of your most recent reply to me.
  7. NY files suit against oil companies.

    For that to be true one has to make the unwarranted assumption that I lacked the education, intellect, curiosity and skepticism necessary to recognise the lies. And I confess, as a ten year old, I was impressed by the nature posters in the classroom supplied by Shell. However, as a ten year old, I never owned a car. By the time I did, I had matured somewhat. I understand your point, but I continue to rail against the righteous indignation of those consumers who ignore their own contribution to the problem. As Pogo said, "We have met the enenmy and he is us."
  8. NY files suit against oil companies.

    If I understand you correctly you are suggesting that the general public is the victim. If that is your position I call bullshit. I am responsible for my choices and if I choose to use the products of the oil industry, whether for running my car, heating my home, providing "convenient" plastics, then I share in responsibility for the consequences. This does not remove a share of the responsibility from the oil companies, but it is a position that is both more practical and ethical than playing the victim card. @Sensei The designers of the car did not force me. I am not a child, trapped in a world without freedom of choice. Neither are you. Don't ignore your responsibility.
  9. NY files suit against oil companies.

    No oil company I know forces me to put fuel in my car. While we may rightly question the efforts by oil companies to deny global warming and its probable cause, we can hardly blame them for our own addiction to energy consumption.
  10. Current events

    Natural disasters Sporting events Media action Celebrities Etc. All of which can surely be handled adequately within the current Lounge.
  11. why do two objects fall same rate in a vacuum

    I'm curious as to what your 'logic' is based on. Would you care to expound? It might help explain your apparent difficulty with received theory.
  12. Oprah as a Presidential candidate

    I rather meant that you wouldn't want to advertise the fact that I agreed with you. It could damage your reputation.
  13. Oprah as a Presidential candidate

    It makes total sense to me, however, you probably wouldn't want to advertise that.
  14. New High-Speed Record

    No, you are both wrong. It will orbit the smallest star in the solar system. And, slightly better than the Star article is this from wikipedia. Or this from NASA.
  15. Bezene

    Thank you for your reply. I don't see how the diagram you have offered showing the double bond movement reflects the OP's question. I interpret "shifting all the double bonds of benzene to one side" to mean this. That was the basis for my response. My remarks on the outdated concept of double bonds was based upon poorly remembered concepts of orbitals from an undergaduate Chemistry course in the 1960s and a misreading of the wikipedia article. I believe I am correct in stating that the benzene structure does not contain "conventional" double bonds.
  16. Finger Pointing Debating

    Perhaps the impact that politics has on many (almost all?) aspects of our life make involvement in it important. Perhaps the sacrifices of those who fought for universal suffrage merit us more than dabbling in the arena. Perhaps the political character of the behaviour of all primates, man included, require we invest time in politics. Perhaps the only way to improve the condition and future of individuals, nations and society is to be committed to political activity. Perhaps . . . .
  17. Bezene

    Fair enough. I made this statement: The double bonds could not be shifted to one side since this would conflict with the valence of Carbon . That was my way of expressing what Studiot said in his post, which he summarised as " You can't just move the double bonds without also moving the single bonds." Carbon has a valency of 4. If we shift the double bonds and try to keep the hydrogens where they are it simply cannot work - which is what we are both saying. I accept that this was not clear, though I can't quite see why not. I then made this statement: I understand double bonds are an older concept that has been replaced, in this instance, by delocalised electron distribution. wikipedia has something to say on the matter. I would welcome, for my own education, an explanation of what is incorrect in that statement. Thanks.
  18. Thank you for your reply. My concerns with its weakness and, to some extent, its irrelevance have been addressed by Strange in his subsequent posts. Your latest lengthy reply contains abundant detail. I shall review this detail and comment, or question further, once I have (or have not) made sense of it.
  19. Good. Thank you. We seem to be on the same wavelength on that one. Do you have an approximate notion as to how far "down" the web of life such intelligent behaviour expresses itself? Restricted to primates? Present in amoeba? Somewhere in between? Also, on to the second question: Please justify the claim that as such tasks became optimized that intelligence became more generalised. In the above question "justify" could be replaced by "provide reasoned support for".
  20. I've read those responses. None of them appear to answer any of my questions. Let's take it one at a time: Please define, explain, or at least list "cognitive tasks".
  21. Dimreepr has, Strange has and now I have. Incidentally, I made a sincere attempt to work with you by asking some specific questions as below: I see this has just received a downvote. My hypothesis is that the person with the most likely motivation to downvote that post was you. If I am mistaken then you will be happy to answer those questions. If you choose not to I shall take that as confirmation that you are either trolling or way too smart for me to comprehend. I'll then leave you to your own devices.
  22. Bezene

    1. No one had responded to the plea for help, so I summed up my recollection of chemistry from many decades ago and offered my take on it. 2. I opened with a statement concerning the primary purpose of the post, namely, to prompt a more knowledgable answer. 3. It's disappointing you chose not react to the prompt, but instead chose to highlight that what I wrote was incorrect in some way - a caveat already covered in my opening sentence. 4. On the the off chance that the OP is still looking for an informed answer would you like to help them out with that now?
  23. Bezene

    In the hope of prompting a more knowledgable answer here are a couple of thoughts: The double bonds could not be shifted to one side since this would conflict with the valence of Carbon. I understand double bonds are an older concept that has been replaced, in this instance, by delocalised electron distribution. wikipedia has something to say on the matter.
  24. Exoplanet discoveries

    I'm not sure I agree with your last statement. Life has made the Earth more suitable for the life that currently inhabits it. I'm sure the Archean microbiota found the efforts of the cyanobacteria that oxygenated the atmosphere most unwelcome, disrupting the ideal conditions they had enjoyed for a billion years.
  25. What is the difference between science and philosophy?

    Perhaps it wasn't originally "clarity", but Charity. (That's Chinese whispers for you.) We all benefit from a measure of charity in our communications. Now as to the OP and Tub, who reversed himself and buTted in, rather than seeing Science and Philosophy as separate, I rather consider science a sub-set of Philosophy. A very effective sub-set, but a sub-set nonetheless. Now if the other sub-sets of Philosophy are as distinctive in their methods and objectives as is science, then perhaps a comparison between science and the amalgam of all those diverse sub-sets is going to be monumentally difficult. Possibly Eise couild comment on this thought.