J'Dona

Ah, the equation just needs to be balanced by adding another O₂ molecule to the reactants.

CH₄ + 2O₂ ---> CO₂ + 2H₂0

Now both sides have 1 C, 4 O, and 4 H.

I don't know about Switzerland, but Sweden is also has a good track record in that area. They hold more mass referendums than just about any other country in the world (don't know about any others but please correct me if I'm wrong), so people have more direct control over governmental policies. (They also have the highest % of population with internet access of any country in the world, one of the best education systems, one of the best mail services, and lots of blonde women!)

 

Even though Hitler's election was a sham, he did have vast popular support in Germany. The majority is not always right. I don't like having democracy itself as a goal, a principle to acheive, or even a desire. I think good government should be the desire, and if democracy is part of that, then fine, but if it isn't, that's fine too.

You're right about that, though one of the main reasons for vast popular support was probably propaganda at the time. The problem with a lot of media services is that they are either government-controlled (obviously biased) or privatised corporations, which the government usually supports through policies and hence influences the material they are willing to show which might reflect badly upon the government. The only way I can see around that would be either by the methods I gave in my post above, without a party to influence (though far-fetched and not really relevant as it just wouldn't happen), or more realistically, through some form of international media network, with international funding and administration, which wouldn't be as biased toward any country. Maybe tie it into the UN somehow so that all member states must contribute some funding toward it and allow access to it in their country (where some of the funding goes toward making sure it is widely available).

I'll type really quickly because I have to leave for work in ten minutes.

 

What about a system without actual parties, but where people vote constantly on all the different issues? As it is now, people vote for their party, who sets news laws and makes amendments and so forth, but in many cases the majority will not be behind all of their policies and so forth. A two-party system has the advantages of only one vote (easy for the people to choose and, incidentally, measier for the government to manipulate). Without a set party and with people voting on all the issues, there is very little room for corruption and every single policy would be for the majority of the population. This would require a lot of effort on behalf of the people, but this can be offset somewhat by tax cuts or extra holidays for those registered to vote (an extra week, for example, to ensure that they can always turn up to vote and have some time to study).

 

Two things to make it work properly though:

1 - Make voting mandatory if you are able to vote,

2 - The right to vote is only retained if you pass regular political tests.

 

Obviously that sounds dictatorial, but it ensures that every vote is informed and fair. If you didn't want to vote or be bothered with politics, then fine, you don't have to, but you won't be allowed to vote because should you be swayed by propaganda (whoever for, I don't know, because there are no parties) then you cannot vote due to some sudden and fanciful feelings about one policy or another without actually understanding them, and you'd have to take tests and study it to vote on it. But a vote made by someone without any real knowledge of the issues is both unrepresentative and damaging to the concept of democracy. A fair and unbiased media is hence the single greatest concern for this nation.

 

Ack, got to go now...

Well, every now and then there's a news clip on TV... or for those of us who have digital TV, we get International CNN as well. The papers tend to be a far better source; if you were to open up the Times, then pages 10 to 16 or something would be on the world, the USA, and the US elections respectively (usually with 2 pages for the elections), then page 20 or so is a full page of political articles (usually British, but often US) followed by letters to the editor, most of which are political as well. Both the Times and the Guardian are excellent papers for politics, and you could probably find most of those aticles online.

Well, the US elections are in 50 days, so things are bound to liven up! US politics affect the world in more ways than I can easily count. Plus it's so easy to keep up: Kerry's vietnam record is being questioned. Depending on who I support, all evidence for or against its validity can be expounded or excluded, and I can now join any debate on the current and pending policital issues in the USA.

 

Incidentally, I'll be in California on the 2nd of November. I would expect to see many shirtless and hairy men running around the streets with boards and slogans, though I'm likely to be in a far more comfortable position at the time, probably driving through Death Valley!

You realize, of course, if we have more parties then the MAJORITY can hate a candidate and he can still win. You have 3 candidates, and one gets 40% vote, and the others 30 and 30, then he wins, even though most people DON'T want him.

Well, in the 2000 elections 100 million didn't vote. The popular vote was pretty much 50:50 (slightly more for Gore but Bush won the electoral), so that's 33% of the country in each case who are mostly for one or the other... I wouldn't really call that a majority. Bush won with only 33% of the country in real terms behind him, and Gore lost with only 33% behind him.

 

Even then it's virtually impossible for someone to totally agree with all of a party's policies, in which case that vote is not really a 100% backing. As it is there are only two parties in US politics, so the US democratic system allows for very little leeway and individual preference. At the risk of offending people here, I feel that for this reason the USA has one of the poorer forms of democracy, in terms of choice by the people, because there are only two options, both of which the voter may not agree with, in which case their vote and their opinion is nullified. Call me a communist, but that doesn't seem fair to me!

 

Obviously the UK suffers from the exact same point that Cap'n Refsmmat brings up (that being a result based upon a less than 50% majority). However, those votes are more representative of the people, because - given more options - the population has chosen one which more closely relates to their values and wishes than only two options might; given those options, we find that things are not quite as black and white as a two-party system would suggest. It's also harder to pay off the parties, as Phi for All pointed out.

 

This reminds me, I had intended to start a thread to brainstorm some new ideas for electoral processes. While on an airline a while back, I read an article that basicly said our system of voting is the worst and easiest to rig. It talked about a few others that seemed relatively fair. If you have any interest in a thread like that, I might start it with some of the ideas I had.

I think that would be a very good thread topic. I've personally been thinking a lot about election processes and ways to better represent the people's wishes. Most of my ideas relate to an outlandish no-party system where people vote by mass referendums on the issues so that a majority is always acheived, but it's got issues. I was going to make a thread on it but I haven't time and it's a bit silly, and an open one like yours would be much better.

Even though it sounds trivial, one of the of the good things about something like gmail is that the email address is shorter. For example, blueyonder.co.uk takes more effort to type than gmail.com. Also, the shorter an email address is, the more special it feels, because with all the millions (billions?) of addresses out there a thirteen-character address would be rather sweet.

I don't know if it's just this site in particular. All forums can be addicting.

 

Here's an edited version of how my brother puts it: "There's a thing called forarrhea. It's a disease that people have that makes them spend too much time on forums. They can't stop looking at their post counts. It's like when you look at a forum for Harley Davidson Repair and Highlighting in Northern Oklahoma, and there's someone who has over 25000 posts... they've got it bad."

 

Very loosely, "forarrhea" would mean: "excessive flow/posting (-rhea) on forums (fora-)". I used to struggle with forarrhea, but this is the only forum I really look at nowadays. Of course I spend two hours a go on it, I just don't post much. Anyone know how do you set autorefreshing on Mozilla Firefox?

I could use a gmail account if you've got one spare!

 

jgarman@blueyonder.[nospamplz].co.uk

Jesse Garman

Sounds good to me; if F911 airs that night on the same channel, the left-wing propaganda might cancel out the right-wing propaganda, and people could make their vote based on what they feel rather than what they've been told to feel.

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude above or in the last post, and I'm certainly not calling images of September 11th and the atrocities which occured under Saddam's reign in Iraq "propaganda". I was just trying to say that those who have chosen their party through informed personal decision aren't going to swing their vote on the day before the election due to some sensationalist movie released months earlier, and so makes no odds. If those late-changers actually affect the election result in the end, it's a rather sad state for fair democracy.

Certainly not! It would take attention away from the real issues, like Kerry's Vietnam record. To quote Dave Barry:

...whose record [John Kerry's] during the Vietnam era, to judge from the amount of media scrutiny, pro and con, it has received in the past few weeks, is the most important single issue facing Americans today.

Actually, that's a joke. I don't see any harm in airing Fahrenheit 911 at any time up till and after the elections; if there's a single American left by November 2nd who doesn't know the issues and is still swayed by political propaganda - from either side - then god save America, and hope he blesses the side which bought your vote.

 

EDIT: Sorry about that... I got emotional.

It seems Andromeda has around 30 million suns and out Milky way has only 2.6 million suns.

Sorry to nitpick (was just a reading mistake in the article), but that's the predicted mass of their central black hole in solar masses. The Milky Way itself has - depending on who you speak to - anywhere from 100 billion to 400 billion stars, and the Andromeda Galaxy has something like two to four times that.

 

In other words, the Andromeda Galaxy would be like a "mirror" of the Milky Way, but quite a bit larger. There's also been talk recently that the Milky Way Galaxy might actually be a bar spiral galaxy, though I can't back that up with an article.

You guys have probably heard this one before (maybe it's somewhere else in the forums but I just can't find it), but here it is for those who haven't:

 

----------------------------------------

It's not the fault of the student if he/she fails, because the year has ONLY 365 days.

Typical academic year for a student:

 

1. Sundays - 52 Sundays in a year, which are rest days. Balance 313 days.

 

2. Summer holidays - 50, where weather is very hot and difficult to study. Balance 263 days.

 

3. 8 hours daily sleep - means 122 days. Balance 141 days.

 

4. 1 hour for daily playing (good for health) - means 15 days. Balance 126 days.

 

5. Two hours daily for food & other delicacies (chew properly & eat) - means 30 days. Balance 96 days.

 

6. 1 hour for talking (man is a social animal) - means 15 days. Balance 81 days.

 

7. Exam days per year - at least 35 days. Balance 46 days.

 

8. Quarterly, Half yearly and festival holidays - 40 days. Balance 6 days.

 

9. For sickness at least 3 days. Balance 3 days.

 

10. Movies and functions at least 2 days. Balance 1 day.

 

11. That 1 day is your birthday.

 

How can you work on your birthday?

I saw a squirrel

It was doing like this, see?

Then it fried and died

One major problem in the way of international efforts in space is that some major countries are quite interested in the military prospects. I don't think they'd want to share progress in that area one bit.

I agree with that badchad. If people were to put funds labelled for space exploration into, say, space plane research, it would help open the door to cheap spaceflight, and therefore commercial ventures. After that capitalism would drive it forward, although it wouldn't be an international venture... but then it shouldn't be, given it would just be for transport and not the next "big project".

 

Likewise, if these funds were also poured into nuclear fusion research, which would aid spacecraft and colonies immensely, but also sort a few things out on Earth (see the Peak Oil thread that's active at the moment).

People who vote no should say how much "enough" is, and justify it.

I'd very much agree with YT2095's definition of enough. Personally - and I'm not an economically minded person so my ideas are probably just composed nonsense - I'd say "enough" would be the amount required to set up an international organisation with the funding and ability to always be working on the next big project.

 

Forty years ago a "big project" in that sense was getting someone on the moon; today it would be getting someone on Mars. After that (or at the same time) colonization of the Moon would be the next agenda, and then colonization of Mars, and then human exploration of the outer solar system, extrasolar exploration with unmanned solar sail probes or some such, and research into advanced propulsion with the eventual aim of making the colonization of space quicker and easier. That's true and proper exploration in the sense that I believe blike's original post implied, although on a completely different scale than current levels. It does cost a fortune, of course, and in the interest of economics (and politics) things would be a lot smoother if it was an international front from today onwards.

 

My justification would be the subsequent boosts to the aerospace industry, international cooperation, knowledge gained about cosmology and the origin of the universe, additional living space for humans and other Earth lifeforms, the preservation of life on Earth and the human race in case of a natural disaster which would wipe out Earth (small risk, but a backup population is handy...), scientific research which affects life in more ways than can be counted, and the wow factor. Mostly the last one, I'll admit.

 

Okay, almost only the last one...

I voted no, we do not spend enough. The immediate returns might not be apparent, but then they never really are; science is progressing at a rate faster than any previous time in human history, but when any new funding is put into a certain area you can't expect immediate results. By this I mean something like the Mars rovers, from which we discovered that there was water on Mars. That might not seem like much, but it could give significant insight regarding the possibility of evolution of life on other planets in the future, and for the cost of two bucks per American citizen. That's about half a pack of cigarettes.

 

Maybe I sound naive, but considering that apart from the Apollo missions the entire human race in the whole of history has been confined to the Earth and within a few hundred miles of its surface, I consider any advances into space exploration to be a step forward. Not just when those steps bring us global communications, weather satellites, evidence for new theories which shape cosmology and our very concept of the universe (i.e. the Big Bang and the discovery of the background microwave radiation), and so forth.

 

I'd like to say more but it's extremely late here (1:34 AM) so I've got to go...

But that's the best part about it.

Movies' date=' bleh, as much as I love starwars, movies # 1 and 2 sucked thus far. The original 4, 5 and 6 rocked.

The novels is where it's all happening though. You've got to buy and read them. Truly amazing stuff. So far, I have over 50 starwars novels, that includes all of the old series and half of the new one.[/quote']Yeah, I've only read 9 of them, but they're quite decent. A lot of good authors are writing them and continue to do so.

 

The only problem is that, after allowing these novels to continue the Star Wars universe, they promptly change everything in Episodes 1 and 2. For example, in Jedi Search you find out that it was the scientist Qwi Xux who designed the Death Star, and yet in Episode 2 they're hiding plans for it. That's before the Empire even exists and before Qwi Xux is born, and the official version before the new films or even novels was that the Emperor ordered it built to help control the Empire and such, and he couldn't have done that when he was still just Chancellor.

 

It should be clear that I prefer the original trilogy to the new films as well.

Wait a minute... I think I'm beginning to see where ExtraSense is coming from. There are conspiracies everywhere! Look at this photographic proof that giants exist. You can see its boot!

I'll put my dad's car in: VW camper. I think the closest thing to that above is a minivan, so I checked that. If it were a person, it would be about 140 and have arthritis, heart disease, and a desperate and incurable case of flatulence. As such it has more character than all the cars of Northern England put together.

 

As for what I personally would want, it would have to either be a Lambourghini Diablo (but of course) or a Mini Cooper.

Just had an interesting conversation with somebody today about IQ tests, and though I'd mention it as it relates to their general importance or significance.

 

I was told of a story of a student at Manchester university who did an IQ test and joined MENSA. Then they were transferred to Cambridge.

 

Is IQ really important enough that professors and employers consider it that big a deal? IQ test scores can be raised artificially by several points just by studying the sorts of questions they ask... I mean, even I might be able to join MENSA if I did that. I fail to see the actual point of the organisation, aside from boosting chances to get into a good university, but if it's that important an issue is it worth trying, or are IQ tests no longer considered as highly as before?

Those two have me scared

I am male, and nearly failed

And I've quite long hair

Haikus with a rhyme

Take more time than ones with none

And some are ripe limes

water penetrates deep even in the most tough minerals.

And the process involves diffusion' date=' which is subject of physical modeling.[/quote']So then, being an expert, you would have no trouble in explaining how billions of tons of water "diffused" into the crust and left no liquid traces at some time between last summer and the arrival of the Mars rovers?

 

Here's another point to consider. At every point in time for the past few decades Mars has probably been monitored by amateurs across the globe (independant of the so-called NASA conspiracy) and infrared spectroscopy (and indeed colour and albedo) would instantly give away water and water vapour on Mars. The images of running water you're talking about are from last summer, you say? Or the last year at least?

 

Oh, and as for the "shutting up about immature comments" part, you wouldn't be getting any of that if you so much as showed the slightest bit of respect for the scientific method. One does not just take photographs of rocks with a slight likeness to Earth animals and plants and make wild conclusions based upon them (involving the destruction of virtually all previous science to accompany them) and expect a positive response from us. I don't believe you have any qualifications at all; if you did, your lack of scientific objectivity suggests why you no longer conduct team research, but rather post indefensible conclusions on free web space and troll forums to get attention.