Double K

This isn't really about earth - but not sure where else the thread should go. Jupiter has lost a coloured band in its southern hemisphere... thought people might find this interesting. Wonder what it means!?

Well I think expecting any American president to get this figure DOWN is a longshot. Anyone who isn't American can see that this debt isn't serviceable. Half of that 21% would be interest alone

And how many ignorant people do you know of that you can say went to school? I dont think being an expert at something makes one not ignorant either... I guess that goes back to indoctrination which doesnt necessarily always help

Just to (hopefully) shed some humor on the topic. I followed the link initially because I thought you meant Reggae-nomics. I believe a discussion on that would be far more chilled out. Peace.

I don't see what the government can hope to do that the oil company wouldn't already be trying to do. The main thing that concerns me, is that it appears that the initial response was based around salvaging the pipeline, and as much oil as possible without focusing on just shutting it off. I think the time has been and gone weeks ago for this approach, and now the focus needs to be on how do we shut the darn thing off!!?? I see the danger of just dumping explosives down there, it has the potential to actually make the flow faster. What is the projected amount of fluid contained in this well? Surely it's not bottomless? This has to be one of the worst disasters of all time, given that the oceans all connect this toxic gunk has potential to travel very far afield from it's origin. In a sense we are all to blame, our oil addiction caused it... I think For Sarah Palin to say those comments is pretty stupid as it's not even slightly possible to pin blame for any of it on Obama. This disaster is simply unprecedented...The damage will be decades in the unravelling. Very very sad and horrible to see this has not been shut down yet! Also regarding type of response, I saw a documentary the other night on a guy developing remote controlled submarines designed for harsh climates to explore one of the ice moons near jupiter. Surely NASA has something in development - this would be a perfect time to test it out!

I tried to address your questions obvisouly I didnt get what you were after, I will have to attempt to respond to those when I have more time to find what you are after exactly. However, as stated earlier in the thread, my main problem with it is that it's a non-governmental organisation, who makes up this board that dictates food standards? Big Pharma does. Secondly the codex has been slipped through as a trade agreement. This is NOT a public health document, this is for food trade and what passes as acceptable between countries engaging in trade, however a close look at anything in this document clearly shows that it IS enforcing public health. Thirdly, inalienable human rights covered under security of person, such as; prohibition of a person being subjected to medical treatment against his or her will. the right to not take medical treatment. An NGO certainly does not have any jurisdiction to dictate and mandate these standards. Lastly, why has it been slid through without any knowledge. Had you heard about this codex before now? Why so secretive? What is dictated as directive under this codex will actually impact those human rights, much as adding flouride to water as a directive. It's not the government (or NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION'S) decision to force medication on me (or anyone). This is an inalienable human right - and yet the agenda presses forwards. Obviously there is far too much there to read, for you and I both, however just take a look at the companies involved that make up the head of these NGO's and then consider the possibilities. Director-general FAO Jacques Diouf Diouf was the Secretary-General of the Central Bank for West African States "In October, 1996, Codex met in Bonn, Germany to make radical changes in the rules governing dietary supplements for member nations. The proposals of greatest concern were those made by the German delegation (see the proposed Draft Guidelines for Dietary Supplements) and is being sponsored by Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. These are the three drug companies formed when the Nuremberg War Trials disbanded I.G. Farben, manufacturer of the poison gas used in Nazi concentration camps. This is not the first time that the UN has been linked closely with Nazi war criminals. Ostensibly, their purpose is ". . . to create a set of international standards to guide the world's growing food industry and to protect the health of consumers." Can reports from 4 different, totally unrelated sources, be ignored? I think not! The pharmaceutical company backed proposals for all of the following: 1. No vitamin, mineral, herb, etc., can be sold for prophylactic (preventative) or therapeutic reasons. 2. Natural remedies can be sold as food but they must not exceed the potency (dosage) levels set by the commission. This means that consumer access to dietary supplements will be limited to the RDA dosage as a maximum limit for vitamins (Vitamin C - 60 mg. Vitamin E - 15 mg., etc.) Supplements without an RDA (e.g. coenzyme Q10) would be illegal to sell because they would all become drugs. 3. Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding, eliminating the escape clause within the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that allows a nation to set its own standards. This applies to all member countries of the UN. Any nation that does not accept these new standards will be heavily fined by the World Trade Organization (WTO) creating the potential for crippling entire sectors of that nation's economy. 4. All new supplements would be banned unless they go through the Codex approval process. Five steps have already been taken in the Codex process over the past few years. Remember Canadian Bill C-7 which was passed eventually in Canada as C-8? The similarity of the process, the secrecy, and the wording between the Codex proposals and the Canadian laws is uncanny. Voting in favor of adopting the German proposals has been overwhelming (16 for 2 against in the most recent vote). The Codex process is now at Step Five - formalization and debate concerning the specific features. In two years, Codex could jump from Step 5 to Step 8 to finalize these restrictions." http://ahha.org/codexbuchanan.htm (Very interesting article that one... well worth the read.)

I guess my point was that knowledge is often sought as a reaction, rather than just gaining vast amounts of general knowledge. I think ignorance rears up when a problem is presented and no knowledge is sought to approach the problem, or no varied knowledge aquired to tackle the problem. Could it be said that ignorance is absence or, stagnation of knowledge?

They refer to these as "Food Additives" so it's sneakily hidden away http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/jecfa/monographs/en/ It's not easy going, but it's in the "Veterinary Drug residues in food" section. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/vetdrugs/data/vetdrugs/index.html I draw your attention to some items from that large list Streptomycin, which is a nuerotoxin... http://www.rxlist.com/streptomycin-drug.htm http://www.codexalimentarius.net/vetdrugs/data/vetdrugs/details.html?id=24 Sulfadimidine http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v33je07.htm http://www.codexalimentarius.net/vetdrugs/data/vetdrugs/details.html?id=57 “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus Head of Unit for Dietary Foods, Nutrition and Allergies and Deputy Head of Department for Food Safety at the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin. According to the WHO "Working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application" (page 5 section 22.) "Experts involved in risk assessment including government officials and experts from outside government should be objective in their scientific work and not be subject to any conflict of interest that may comprimise the integrity of the assessment" http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&vid=ISBN9789250059112&vid=ISBN9250059116#v=onepage&q&f=false

Couldn't agree with you more! This is every country (well... democratic country). In fact it seems more often than not there is no real choice but an illusion of choice. The Australian 2 party government (Westminster system) is a great example of this, there is not a whole lot of difference between the 2 policies, but the opposition party simply kick up a furore and oppose everything, which seems to lead nowhere. But I continually see more of a move toward centralisation and "globalisation" now before that detracts from the main topic I am neither anti globalisation or pro globalisation, I'm still fence sitting on that one... Government seems so often to be for the 'lowest common denominator' so that laws and government protect us from the most ignorant and disturbed. This doesn't seem too bad on the whole, but when the government starts becomming a nanny state (as we have in Australia) then democracy socialism and communism becomes a hazy blurred line. I think Rands topic is a very worthwhile debate, is America ready to have control given back to the people so they can determine their own fate? I would like to think America has come a long way and this would be possible, but given human nature I think it's dangerous territory. I also think history would repeat itself, and there would be untold violence and chaos from the decision. In America's history though, north vs south, there were those who fought and believed in equal rights, as has happened throughout history, and in the end that ideal prevailed - maybe more faith should be placed in 'man' (fellow humans) than we currently do.... "A noble man compares and estimates himself by an idea which is higher than himself; and a mean man, by one lower than himself. The one produces aspiration; the other ambition, which is the way in which a vulgar man aspires." Marcus Aurelius

Take this for what it is, totally unbiased comment, as I am not american and don't really follow either side of the political debate there. However just from watching that youtube discussion posted earlier, the point that his comments made to me, is that you don't have to support these businesses if they behave this way. There are 2 kinds of discrimination, you can discriminate against someone because they are in a minority, or you can discriminate in their favor because you fear how it would look because they are a minority. Both are forms of discrimination. Also from the comments that I read, everyone here said that it was black people that would be the target, and yet tailoring comments to only reflect on african americans is in itself a racial prejudice. White, yellow, short, disabled it doesn't matter any one of these groups can be the target of discrimination. Rand said he didn't think discrimination of any kind was acceptable and this he did demonstrate through his comments and reactions.

I think maybe this rounds it off. Think of knowledge as a tool box. In my toolbox I have a selection of different items with which I can approach a particular problem or idea. For example, to stay with the toolbox theory, lets say that you have to cut some wood, you know you need a tool but you dont have whatever it is you need. I then go out and seek from someone more knowledgeable, or another source, where I can get said tool. Once I have it I can then move onto next problem

Sure, I also support global safety standards, but why are they being dictated by NGO's, implemented in secrecy, and enforced via trade agreements? Edit: I'm not sure if you are familiar with the terms common law, and napoleonic law. In basic terms, common law means that unless it something is explicitly forbidden within the law, it's ok to do. Napoleonic Law is unless it is specified as legal, then it is forbidden. Codex operates under napoleonic law. It also creates an environment where it is so expensive and difficult to get approval for a food substance that the only ones capable of fulfilling an application are the large companies such as IG Farben and Monsantos. Since the introduction of the Magna Carta - we haven't been under napoleonic law...(end edit) When a company such as Monsanto is implicit in this codex the water becomes quite murky. When "GM" crops are created not to germinate UNLESS they are treated with a specific pesticide/herbicide (as are the terminator crops) and these type of crops are FORCED into use by the codex, surely that points to conflict of interest, not only that but extreme danger in regards to eliminating farming techniques and keeping of any seed from your crop for the next season. These seeds are in some ways hardier and can exist in harsher climates, but the flow of supply will be completely and utterly controllable, and, ensures a requirement for a product to be in use for - essentially, generations. There is also evidence suggesting that organic crops and animal products are higher in vitamins and nutrients (the same ones declared as poisons in the codex) than are in GM crops. GM has been around for a long time, if you consider things such as splicing and grafting as GM techniques, and in a sense they are - but the creation of seeds that will not germinate unless treated by a specific product is far removed. "According to estimates by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (ERS), five common foodborne pathogens were responsible for an estimated 6.9 billion dollars worth of lost productivity in last year alone![30] The Center for Disease Control (CDC) carefully tracks the reported incidence of food-related illness and makes estimates for unreported cases based on those statistics. From the CDC estimates, foodborne pathogens kill as many as 5000 Americans every year" http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/403/Prejeanpap.html Ok, whilst destruction of certain bacteria and pathogens via radiation is not bad in theory, I question the need to reduce the importance of this to a dollar figure based on lost productivity. foodborne pathogens responsible for 5000 deaths in america per year is hardly a large figure and hardly requires all food be treated this way, again I wonder at the purpose behind it as even according to their own figures it's not a large problem. More die to the common flu each year than to this. "According to Pomeranz's research, he estimates that 2,216,000 hospital patients experienced serious adverse drug reactions (side effects) and 106,000 died from these reactions in 1994 alone. This astounding number accounted for 4.6% of all recorded deaths in the U.S. in that year." http://www.livingwellchiropractic.com.au/templates20/article/1449.html So why don't we regulate out all pharmacy as it's causing in excess of 21 times that death rate of foodborne pathogens? "the FDA essentially told the public that the meat and milk from cloned livestock are safe for human consumption. FDA's action flies in the face of widespread scientific concern about the risks of food from clones, and ignores the animal cruelty and troubling ethical concerns that the cloning process brings. The approval also goes against the will of Congress, who voted twice in 2007 to delay FDA's decision on cloned animals until additional safety and economic studies can be completed, and ignores the feelings of the American public, 150,000 of whom wrote to FDA opposing the approval during last year's public comment period. What's worse, FDA will not require labeling on cloned food, so consumers will have no way to avoid these experimental foods." http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/cloned_animals.cfm

Not really sure where would be the most appropriate for this thread, but I wanted to open up discussion about it as it something that will affect every single one of us in some way regardless on which country you are from. The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp Here is a list of participating countries. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/members.jsp?lang=EN The interesting thing about this commission is that it is not a public health commission & is not a consumer protection commission. In 1994 Codex Alimentarius with no notice in any country, declared nutrients to be "toxins". Effectively "poisons/toxins" (clinically effective and proven) are now illegal in the way that illicit drugs are illegal. Furthermore all meat products (animals) must be treated with sub-clinical anti-biotics and must be treated with exogenous growth hormones. It also stipulates that all food be irradiated unless eaten raw & locally (including organic food!) The trade commission has allowed POP's (Persistant Organic Pollutants) which are on worldwide banned list to be re-introduced. 7 of the 9 Forbidden POP's Which were considered to be so bad that not one country could disagree they should be banned, have been brought back under this Codex. Things such as Dieldrin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieldrin Hexachlorobenzene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexachlorobenzene just to name two nasty ones from that list. Food that contains these substances, can no longer be stopped at your borders, because that would constitute a "trade violation" In the WHO/FAO epidemiological projections (diet nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases - http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_916.pdf) they(WHO/FAO) estimate that just the vitamin and mineral guideline alone will result in a minimum of 3billion deaths, 1billion thru simple starvation. The next 2B will die from preventable diseases of undernutrition. This codex came into effect GLOBALLY on Dec 31 2009. I'm trying not to be alarmist here, but it's not really very easy. This document came into effect globally without any notice to anyone effectively. Why the need to sneak it through? As far as political discussion goes, why do non-governmental organisations have so much power in our society today? Why can these privately funded, ethically compromised organistaions dictate on such a grand scale with such dire projections? These guidelines are being enforced by World Trade and World Health organisations - so are effectively directive. I would love to list the private organisations involved in the funding of this codex, but I think if you do your own research you will discover for yourself how underhanded and how much of a conflict of interest exists.

Why go "in" to work at all? We live in an age of technology, I could certainly, very easily, perform my job from home (with the software provided). If I could do this, even 2 or 3 days a week, I could save on petrol and all the rest of it, but bosses are still stuck in the old way of thinking. This wont change until the next generation takes their place as the bosses.

Good UFO footage here http://mog.com/RGM/blog/139680

Justin Beiber was playing on the radio and he couldnt take it any more?

Actually this is already being done but not through restricting oil. There is now a "Greenstar Rating" for new construction/developments. You gain more green points for many things, including lower carbon footprints, utilising solar etc, and making the design "intelligent" by utilising natural heating & cooling to reduce as much as possible the need for extra heating/cooling. Some new developers will demand a green star rating of a minimum (3 stars for example) most new developers are going along this line as most councils have made it harder to get DA (design approval) for buildings that have no green star rating at all. Other benefits and incentives are also offered to encourage greenstar design buildings as well throughout the construction processes. If this interests you you can view the criteria etc here http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-overview/

Can't stand her music, but having said that I give her full kudos for being a shrewd, and savvy manipulator of the market forces that drive pop. She is a great musician, I believe she writes and arranges most of her own music, which is at least a step up from some of the other snap/crapple/pop out there and I've heard she's a good entertainer on stage, so I give her full credit on those grounds. Totally not my kind of music but I can at least gladly call her a musician (and not just a singing head)

Whilst these points will tend towards being correct, there are factors to consider here. Firstly, what is ugly? What is beautiful? Someone with no teeth may be considered ugly but might fit into your framework above of having a healthy immune system. You just need to have a look at an olympic squad to see beauty doesnt always run parallel with fitness & health. I think one thing to keep in mind is that often, the wealthy/noble families were interbred to retain their money and status in the family. This lead to genetic anomolies and disorders (just take a look at the royal family in britain!) and then along came Princess Di to diversify the gene pool. Genetics plays the leading role in looks, but two ugly people can produce a good looking child on several basis. The genetic material is relevant at the time of conception, so if the parents are fit and healthy, then the baby will inherit the DNA at this point. Then things such as good dental care, innoculations (debatable) and cosmetic options such as bracers, teeth whitening etc all add up and cant be overlooked. Also the parent may have been ugly as their parents at the time drank while pregnant, smoked while pregnant etc, but the next generation took care not to do this. Also personal grooming habits and expsoure to a typically better educated (regarding cleanliness habits) generation at school etc would sociologically encourage the child to have better appearance, even if not blessed with a perfect bone structure its amazing what shiney hair, straight white teeth, and good dress sense can do to improve one's appearance. Just watch any Oprah make-over show to see this at play.

I remember in school having a teacher whom I suspected of marking me more harshly than other students. Who knows their reasoning. To test the theory, I had another teacher regrade my assignments for me and the grades varied significantly. My final test was to use a magazine article (it was simply a creative writing assignment) instead of my own work. She again marked me very low. I didn't ever go to her and let her know, but after, knew in my own mind for sure that she was not marking fairly, for whatever reason.

That's awesome.

I did not know that.... Well if that is true, and people could somehow be convinced of it, I think the likely hood of nuclear power being accepted would be greatly increased. Sorry to detract from the OP, the path just kind of lead this way...

Well primarily, coal/oil are exhaustable, although theres plenty of speculation and BS about how long these stores are around for, so who knows how long we actually have on that, 100's of years maybe at current consumption levels? Secondly, pollution is a factor, there's only so long we can put mercury into the system, that plus other pollution that it causes, lets assume population growth globally (conservatively) at 1% per year.... in 100 years thats alot of power needs to be met with an exhaustable resource.

This also raises another good point. Indoctrination.... Does it help or hinder against ignorance?! In some ways its a hinderance, as it gives a set/structured learning path and is often not flexible with new information...where-as in the case of laws the structure gives enough formwork to allow freedom (debatable!) without slipping outside into harmful to others territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect The Earth's rotation causes the surface to move fastest at the equator, and not at all at the poles. A bird flying away from the equator carries this faster motion with it—or, equivalently, the surface under the bird is rotating more slowly than it was—and the bird's flight curves eastward slightly. In general: objects moving away from the equator curve eastward; objects moving towards the equator curve westward. A particle traveling east would tend to follow straight on, lifting off in a plane perpendicular to the axis. The projection of that on the ground, to which the particle is bound by gravity and pressure, veers off towards the equator. Conversely, a particle moving west is overtaken by the ground speed and pursues its straight course bending down towards the axis, sliding off towards the pole. Newton's laws of motion govern the motion of an object in an inertial frame of reference. When transforming Newton's laws to a rotating frame of reference, the Coriolis force appears, along with the centrifugal force. If the rotation speed of the frame is not constant, the Euler force will also appear. All three forces are proportional to the mass of the object. The Coriolis force is proportional to the speed of rotation and the centrifugal force is proportional to its square. The Coriolis force acts in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis and to the velocity of the body in the rotating frame and is proportional to the object's speed in the rotating frame. The centrifugal force acts outwards in the radial direction and is proportional to the distance of the body from the axis of the rotating frame.