Double K

Most engineering degrees have a "common year" where they touch on all disciplines. During the first year he should be able to get a handle on which type of engineering he prefers. 2nd-4th year are your years where you choose a 'major'. Civil engineering is a good start, it will give a solid base in any of the other mainstream disciplines from which he can choose.

That sounds like anarchy. I'm not sure this would lead us toward free will it would make us very reactive rather than pro-active. And as you are in a reactive state, you would not be exercising pure free will. From a psychology perspective, there are 3 (well 4 really) aspects to personality. Id, ego, and superego. You could include the subconcious as the 4th, however I think it resides in each of these 3 already. Religion, parenting, social exposure during your life, past success/failure all contribute to these anchoring behaviours, and this is really where "free will" is affected. http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/personalityelem.htm The id is driven by the pleasure principle, which strives for immediate gratification of all desires, wants, and needs. If these needs are not satisfied immediately, the result is a state anxiety or tension. The ego operates based on the reality principle, which strives to satisfy the id's desires in realistic and socially appropriate ways. The reality principle weighs the costs and benefits of an action before deciding to act upon or abandon impulses. In many cases, the id's impulses can be satisfied through a process of delayed gratification--the ego will eventually allow the behavior, but only in the appropriate time and place. There are two parts of the superego: 1.The ego ideal includes the rules and standards for good behaviors. These behaviors include those which are approved of by parental and other authority figures. Obeying these rules leads to feelings of pride, value and accomplishment. 2.The conscience includes information about things that are viewed as bad by parents and society. These behaviors are often forbidden and lead to bad consequences, punishments or feelings of guilt and remorse. The superego acts to perfect and civilize our behavior. It works to suppress all unacceptable urges of the id and struggles to make the ego act upon idealistic standards rather that upon realistic principles. The superego is present in the conscious, preconscious and unconscious. With so many competing forces, it is easy to see how conflict might arise between the id, ego and superego. Freud used the term ego strength to refer to the ego's ability to function despite these dueling forces. A person with good ego strength is able to effectively manage these pressures, while those with too much or too little ego strength can become too unyielding or too disrupting.

I can't tell you how happy it made me to see the Suisse stick it to Spain! Great result, Spain was a little unlucky but I think the Swiss team deserved it. The swiss will be happy with that it's the first time in 18 internationals they've ever beaten Spain... Awesome result and now spain will have to work to get out of their group so it might blow the top contenders right open if they lose a 2nd.

In Australia there is no school or college based 'civics' course, and no education regarding the law and your rights. Absolutely ZERO. However you could always take a law subject or something as a Minor i guess, but there's definately nothing during the early school years.

There is a huge difference between the law, and morals. Law is: a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: Its connotation is often in the term "Rule of Law". The rule of law is an ancient ideal, and was discussed by Ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle around 350 BCE. Plato wrote: Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state.[6] Likewise, Aristotle endorsed the rule of law, writing that "law should govern", and those in power should be "servants of the laws."[7] The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion." Morality refers to a code of conduct in matters of right and wrong. Morals may be created by and defined by one's society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. Some moral principles may be universally applicable as well. Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics. I believe aiding someone in need would fall under morality, and yet assaulting someone to take the money would fall under law... You can't really blend the 2, as in my opinion, the law is far removed from morality these days. Also taxation isn't just about stealing money. The 'idea' is to input this back into the community in infrastructure, and other projects that will benefit the entire community and not just the priveledged few. Unfortunately this rarely happens. It's also my belief that a government running a surplus should be questioned, although it's a good idea to have some stashed away for an unforseen problem, it also means tax is too high or not enough is being reinvested into the community.

Actually I think it was content...although there was one post that went a bit awry with attitude after Clippers odd content was being locked very quickly.

There's many reasons it makes a good species to introduce. It's very hardy and can survive low temperatures underground without much of an adverse affect in production of the root. It's a high source of carbohydrate, depending on species is high in sugar and water content. Basically it's cheap to produce, requires very little attention, being underground is highly insect, weather and disease resistant. Also it's not something that can adversely affect other species (like a cane toad can exert pressure on the native species for example) I believe the Dutch introduced them, although I'm not 100% sure on that.

But this is what happens. The 'scientific' people wont see from another side, everything is not always so black and white. I'm willing to wager that before they did the testing, they sat around with peers and said "I'm willing to wager that inside that particle are even smaller particles" and they would have blabbed on about that for a while, and then worked out a way of testing to prove/disprove the speculation. Science will never move forward if all we ever did was stick to what we know. I think it is unreasonable to request someone who may be a specialist in a different area to have as in depth an understanding as required for every different avenue of science. There is a guy on radio here in Australia, very well known and very interesting guy. Dr. Karl He knows something about pretty much everything in science. But he's always willing to admit when he's out of his area of knowledge, he's also always very keen to learn. I'm certainly not a physicist, or chemist. There are many avenues to science, and simply some concepts are beyond me, and certainly other people. This doesn't mean we can't be educated, and you cant expect someone to converse in a forum thread where you request them to go and get 8 years of acquired knowledge to simply be able to comment or have an idea.

I'm not advocating violence against police, I'm also not suggesting non-cooperation. I'm saying there is a limit to how much you are obliged to give when cooperating, which only serves to PROTECT yourself. This has nothing to do with aggressing anyone, or causing anarchy, this is knowing your rights and exercising them.

Oh yeah sure, I agree that he was pretty strict to both teams, he even yellow carded a german stricker for faking a fall. Which was good to see. I notice that the Aussies don't often take a 'dive' in fact they will often play on despite their ankle being all but snapped in two, this is our tradition with most sports, if you can keep going, you do. But I think this may actually be a huge weakness of the aussie team in soccer. We need to start doing this as the theatrics are part of the game. But you say the mexican ref made all good calls and I have to disagree, there was an obvious handball he didn't call right in front of goal. It didn't look particularly deliberate on behalf of the german, but it was absolutely a hand ball, and it was not called despite protests by the Aussies. Also the red card was not really 'by the book' had he played it by the book it would have at worst been a yellow, as the player quite obivously retracted his tags etc and there was as minimal contact as possible, he played at the ball, and safely without tags exposed - although he fouled by causing the contact, he by no means deserved a red, and the replay clearly shows him attempt to pull out of the tackle but he was just too far committed to be able to miss hitting the player, he did however tuck his feet under so his tags weren't exposed. It's easy I guess to be an armchair ref, with the benefit of a replay to boot, but still at this level you would hope these kind of calls were minimal. Not only that but a red card puts our player out for the next match. It was a very harsh penalty and there seemed to be a lacking of balance in the match when handballs and other fouls in front of goal were ignored. this particular ref handed out 9 yellows and 3 reds in a world cup match last time...he's particularly known to be heavy handed with cardings... and so for Rodriguez I produce this for his efforts.

Can you provide scientific proof of this phenomenon? How did you arrive at this figure? And this is exactly the reason why it's frustrating to either the poster, or anyone supporting. I understand the need for 'scientific' merit, it's obvious. But I think the problems comes with terms like 'scientific ignorance' and 'drivel' which only serve to insult the intelligence of the poster, whom more likely than not has minimal emotional attachment to their idea, and at least wants to be told why it wont work, rather than just being summarily dismissed with a wave of the hand as though one was shooing an intellectually insignificant fly. I have, in the past, posted something as a 'theory' when in fact its just a musing, or pondering. Usually at the start of the post it's acknowledged that some more sound reasoning is requested, and yet it was all but summarily dismissed. The problem with PhD's and university degrees is that it provides you with indoctrination and narrows your view on a topic. The reason it is called a 'doctoraite' is for exactly that. And if you notice when you graduate you are wearing your 'mortar board' which is to indicate you have a good 'foundation' upon which to build. Often times, in any job, having a set of eyes that is not related to your project work to check your work will find errors that you yourself just didn't see, and not for lack of trying. Yet science will not tolerate this sort of review. They 'scientific community' are quick to play the 'prove it' card when they know for a fact that the person disputing, or presenting, can not have the same education and understanding they do. Then they will point them to a 30,000 page textbook way beyond basic understanding and say 'read this first then come back and argue with me, cos I've read it'. To me it seems what he is asking that the scientific 'experts' that are part of this forum spend a little more time explaining why things wont work rather than shoo the eager posters away. If it's clearly a time waster (and some of them are) then you are not obligated to respond, sometimes zero response to a time waster thread will get a better outcome than 'feeding the trolls' Furthermore, I have seen through demonstration where admins (and others) have completely ignored valid points to further their own counter-claim. Or have been presented with valid evidence only to stick to their initial claim contrary to the evidence supplied and the knowledge of the other individual. I'm guessing they are not often wrong, and are so confident that they are right, that they fail to recognise the merit in sometimes questioning the official line, or 'already established' science. There's much in this world that is simply accepted as it's been taught because there is an inherent trust in authority figures, and science is seen as this 'clinical' authority figure. Where would we be today, if people like Columbus didn't question the 'accepted' theory that the world was flat?

Well Australia got trounced 4-nil, although I was expecting a loss against Germany. Can't expect much better with a coach that doesn't seem to give a toss, and a poorly selected team, and then to top it off with some terrible referee work and an obvious hand ball in front of goal by germany that was not penalised. Sigh...it's all part of the game, but seriously some balanced reffing sure would be nice. Red carding our best striker for a really minor infringement was a really terrible call. Also just FYI Australia is part of the British empire... And the American team is pretty darn good this year, I think they're in with a chance to get at least to 2nd round.

Absolutely! But you know, use your discretion... If you've obviously not been involved in something provide a statement to police. There's a big difference between providing a statement, and being questioned though. Make sure he has his notepad out, and writes down verbatim what you just said. It can't be mis-interpreted that way. If he's not writing it down, ask him to take his book out and write it down. If he/(she) refuses, then you are well within your rights to refuse to co-operate on the grounds that what you say is subject to mis-interpretation. Alternatively, request that you go to the station and have your statement recorded on tape.

Sorry if this comes across as angry, but it is something that makes me very angry. BP for one, has profited long and hard whilst communities, countries, and general populations are kept in poverty. This world is all about money, money is your god, worship it, do everything you can to protect it, fight for it, kill for it! It sickens me to my core. To think that now this tragedy has been allowed to go on for so many weeks gushing black death into the oceans which will affect all of us in some way, don't underestimate it. This is a terrible event no doubt, and whilst the blame game rages, oil continues to spew into our eco-systems lifeblood, the ocean. There are clear points that lead to this being the direct fault of BP. And to suggest that the company, shareholders and those whom have profited in the past from this company should not shoulder the financial burden is by any definition, unfair. In fact I think the shares should be frozen in that no one should be able to abandon this. If you profited from the boom, you must shoulder the fall-out from the irresponsible expansion which made you wealthy in the first place. This disaster affects each and every one of us, some more directly, as livelihoods are destroyed. Lets just look past the financial problem here though. Everyone is talking about money in this situation, but that is seriously a minor issue here. Tax every person on the planet 3 cents, and clean this up. Seriously, it's just making me want to put my foot through my TV every day I hear this has not yet been plugged. Who cares at this point who is responsible? I sure don't, turn off the tap and then show them the bill - all talk about money should be taken off the table and all effort focused on stopping the fricken leak!

Admittedly though, $75m wont go very far!