abskebabs

I appreciate the responses everyone, but I feel you have misunderstood my initial proposal, or perhaps I did not make certain things clear enough. First of all, the troops would not be drawn up from any existing army, but be volunteers recruited to join the agency or army, who would voluntarily denounce allegiances to any country. Secondly the UN itself would not have direct command over the troops as resolutions concerning the deployment of peacekeepers(or police force if that would be more suitable) would still depend upon resolutions passed and agreed by member nations. This would prevent a "one world order" while tackling the problem of raising troopsfrom individual countries that may be unwilling or unable to offer troops. As for Sisyphus's objection about the US not tolerating recruiting grounds on its soil; I can only beg hippocrisy on the part of America, as the Bush is planning on setting up recruitment posts in various Engish speaking countries throughout the world; especially poor ones lke India.

Technically its not a fossil fuel as the biomass is not producing fuel that has been locked up under the Earth for million years. To put it simply were not putting anything up there that wasn't there before by pursuing thermal depolymerisation(unless you're wiping all crops and plants that were used to produce this initial biomass). The problem is that we are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide by buring fossil fuels which are like carbon deposits, and in the process altering our climate.

Hmm... Martin I must say I appreciate your response. It's interesting that you point out the flaws within the language of mathematics itself and whether it can indeed be used to truly describe physical phenomena, as recently I have come to view mathematics in quite a high light in that ultimately; It is the only language and pursuit of man that could ever hope to contemplate the universe. As one noble physicist once put the ultimate reality would be a mathematical one. My thoughts were actually that perhaps we should not restrict ourselves to finding just one theory, or perhaps change our approach in terms of what we aim to achieve. I guess what I am trying to say, and have come to appreciate only recently from an admittedly inexperienced viewpoint; is that maths at its highest sophistication when related to reality is a lot like art. In this way, it may be impossible to be truly objective about it and arrive at a so-called ultimate theory, just as there can be no one piece of art that is the best piece of Art and encompasses all other pieces of art. Mathematics and physics in the end may just be an art form whose painter is the Universe, whose paintbrushes are scientific tools, and whose canvas is human intellect, to use an analogy of David Bohm's.

I can only provide anecdotal evidence of this, but personally I found maths helps with physics and vice versa. The mathematics involved with Chemistry I found pretty easy, and if you're reasonable at maths you shouldnt have any problems. My advice would be to just make sure you have a good knowledge of all the units and what they mean. As for reading material, I think the textbooks you will be provided should be quite sufficient. That is, unless you're very unlucky and happen to land yourself in an OCR A-level physics course. Without a shadow of a doubt they are the worst textbooks I have ever tried to study or revise with. If you do happen to be this unlucky, I would recommend using other textbooks(even older ones, which I do have a preference for personally) and find chapters which cover the relevant areas of your syllabus. I did this for my revision this year. The same could be said if you happen to find yourself on a course with similiarly useless textbooks.

I've been a bit late to post here but here's how I did in my A2s: Maths:A Physics:B Chemistry:A I think physics is the subject is the subject that has challenged me the most, but in the process has only got me more engrossed and interested in the subject. Do you think I should pursue it? I have been pondering whether to switch from my Chem Eng course at Uni to Theoretical physics. Also; well done 5614 and aj47

This is an idea I've hadl ingering in the back of my mind for a little while now, and so I thought would just share it with you to see what you think of it. What if instead of going through the slow process of drawing up peacekeeping forces from individual countries; the United nations had its own army that it would readily be able to draw up and deploy as a peacekeeping force. The army would be made up entirely of volunteers from different parts of the globe and with absolutely no affiliations to any particular army or other organisations. It may even be helpful if they denounce allegiance to their own country. The force would have to be highly well trained and educated as well as being geared specifically towards the role of peacekeeping(or perhaps more...), and so only equipment fit for this specific task would be required by it. Of course this would require the cooperation of individual countries, or they would make moves to ban the UN or its armed wing which would only cause global destabilisation. If such a proposition is possible to impliment then this would allow larger, possibly more effective peacekeeping forces to be formed to resolve conflicts such as the Lebanon-Israel conflict more quickly, and less subject to the whims of individual countries. Despite the optimism I have over my idea if it was implimented well and managed well, I doubt any politicians in the world have the will or the want to pursue it:-( . Please feel free to poke holes in my argument and offer possible alternatives or changes you think would be beneficial.

Responding to the OP: This is something I've mentioned before, but I'll mention again as I think it should be pursued. It would be placed in the category of other and is THERMAL DEPOLYMERIZATION. I'm optimistic about it as it could help with the disposal of plastic waste, and could also be used to provide a renewable source of petroleum by putting biomass theough the process.

Could there be perhaps no single theory that is capable of describing all phenomena in the Universe because of the large numberof mathematical desgins and geometries that can be made to fit predictions to a good extent but perhaps not produce a complete picture? For example I have read here about the number of string theories that have been produced, and so I ask; could it be just as likely that none of these theories can produce a single mathmeatical design for the Universe, because there is no single design? My argument may seem nonsensical, in the sense that there has to be a reasonable and logical design to our reality(Perhaps design is to strong a word).

I think Jainism and other branches if Hinduism, as well as Buddhism definitely recognise the souls of animals. Some of them, like the Jains abstain from eating meat or harming animals for this reason. Sorry if that annoyed you, I thought I should just inform you about that. Regarding the subject of the post; I think this debate and others, is where we come across the true vagueness of our ideas about our morality and its subjectiveness. I think morals have helped preserve our civilizations, and to some extent, humanity, so I would speculate they may be the result of a selective pressure. But then I think it would be wrong to consider them exclusive to humans alone, taking into light other animals with developed cognitive functions and sophisticated social networks(pigs are an example). Simplistically, perhaps our morals are configured in a way that best allows our survival. I dont think I have a position either way in the case of abortion or in the wider subject of morality. I can only hypothesize reasons for morals being beneficial in accordance with our natural instincts and empathies.

Sometimes I like to challenge myself with a bit of mental arithmetic in my head now and again(instead of using a calculator), especially 2 digit multiplication like that shown above. I like the look of CanadaAOT's method above, though I have been using a different method myself.

I think both Lebanon and Israel will win only if Hezbollah is disarmed(south of the Litani at least), and the process is not stalled, like it is being now by Hezbollah ministers in the Lebanese cabinet.

I saw bits of the interview on youtube. I think I agree, he is pretty creepy.

Should this man be interviewed on CBS, when he was a former ring leader of kidnappers of US citizens and probably played a major role in their torture? I'm all for free speech, and finding out what this man has got to say(I'm most surprised he's having an interview, I thought this was a joke), but won't the thought reach ppl's heads. Should Ahmadinejad be treated as a guest or even allowed on the show, in light of the allegations made aganst him, and his activities in the past? If anything, Wallace should definitely press him on his alleged past crimes against Americans IMO.

This seems a little naive and contrary to the facts to me. Both countries(Lebanon and Palestine) which have been invaded by Israel in the past few weeks are both democratic. I think what would be more correct is to say that it has far less trouble NOWADAYS with secular states such as Egypt or Jordan(Syria is an exception). I think currently it matters little if the states are totalitarian or democratic. I guess I just wanted to point out the broad sweeping generalisation you mentioned is not true. Also, despite it becoming common practice nowadays to collate all terrorist groups(at least the islamic ones anyway) into one group, I don't think it is very helpful. Hamas and Al Qaeda have largely different roots,aims and ideologies and share no links. Hamas had even rejected support from Al Qaeda upon election.

I acknowledge the change in circumstances following his statement, but Ismael Haniya(corrected spelling) did make a statement a while back about accepting the 1967 borders(I doubt either Israel or the US would readily view him as moderate though, or even took much notice of his statement). As far as I know his head has not blown up, but given the way the situation has changed since, I doubt he would be issuing similiar language anytime soon. If anything it will be the Israelis that will have his head blow up, rather than anybody within Hamas. I think his exact statement was: "The answer is to let Israel say it will recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, release the prisoners, and recognize the rights of the refugees to return to Palestine. Hamas will have a position if this occurs."

I think the actual intention of the attacks was to blow the planes up when travelling over the sea so that it could not be recovered, and how the plane was destroyed could not be found so the actions could be repeated by other cells. They are getting pretty wily nowadays. It's amazing how much thought ppl like this put so much thought into how to carry out their actions, yet seemingly so little about their actions and their implications. I'm really glad the intelligence services succeeded this tme, it may be a good PR and morale boost them in the long term.

I have just had an idea, not to resolve the current crisis but perhaps as a long term solution Israel could pursue once hostilities end. I am not sure if it would try this willingly and I acknowledge such an idea may be heavily criticised but here goes. First of all Israel starts appealing to moderates within Hamas(they do exist) and within Hezbollah and Lebanon. Discussions could start to implement a withdrawal to the 1967 borders which Ismael Haniyeh(Palestinian PM) mentioned as minimium conditions for any peace. Nasrallah also mentioned a while back minimuim conditions along the exact same lines. I understand there are elements within both parties that call for the destruction of Israel but the moderates and extremists have to be distinguished rather than put under one roof. For any real hope of working, progress would have to be swift in terms of movement of settlers and realigning of borders. Once these "minimium" conditions have been implemented, if attacks so much as begin then Israel would have absolutely no opposition from the outside world or the Arab world to crack down on either party as it would have fulfilled its side of the bargain. Also once Israel ceases to be seen as an occupying power extremists will begin to lose support. Also someone has to negotiate with and convince Syria that it is not in its long term interests to behave as the channel between Iran and Hezbollah. The US dogmatically refuse to negotiate with Syrians, while conveniently forgetting the fact that it was only with their help that an escalation in hostilities was prevented after the attack in Qanna in 1996 by the Israelis. I recognise such an idea may seem hopelessly unfeasible because of recent developments like the security wall, as well as the fact that such a realignment may put Israel the whole of Israel under the range of rockets from both Lebanon and Palestine. I hope I dont get slated for writing this by you guys...

I think there is quite a difference in terms of culture and language. I think Iran has been "Arabized" by the mullahs currently in power, continuing a long history of the suppression of persian culture and the Zoroastrian and other native religions. It's interesting that foreign words were recently banned in Iran, but Arabic was not included in this. It seems the regime wishes to ignore this minor contradiction in the interests of maintaining the Islamic republic.

Has anyone actually watched the documentary? I don't think you should be satisfied to dismiss it out of hand for the reasons already mentioned. I probably have not done it justice in explaining what it goes through, but you should watch it anyway to at least make a judgement of it first hand. I acknowledge the lifestyle changes ppl go through after many transplant operations. It should be noted however that in the documentary they do make the point that most of the phenomenon were especially observed more in patients with heart transplants as opposed to those with organ transplantations. I understand a certain degree of skepticism is required and indeed beneficial to science, but not to the extent that it becomes outright dismissiveness of new ideas or approaches.

In short, I think there has. In my laziness, I have failed to elaborate on it. You will find a lot more about it on the video though, especially theories being put forward for how such phenomenon work.

Hi everybody, I have been pondering the whether and when I should post this for a while, but I have decided to get it over and done with. I was watching a very interesting Mindshock documentary on Channel 4 more than a month back titled Transplanting Memories. Ppl living within the UK may be vaguely aware of these documentaries. I even bothered to make notes on the documentary, which lo and behold; I am now going to use to write this post. Basically the program was centred on the changes in mental behaviour and personality of patients after their operations. Many underwent lifestyle changes, and also adopted the memories of their doners. For example one woman found that her handwriting changed, she changed her food preferences, becoming fond of KFC and drinking beer; things she would have abstained from with a passion before her operation. She also had a dream of young biker going by the name of Tim L. This same Tim L turned out to be her doner, something which was unprecedented as she could not have known this because of doner confidentiality. The program also advanced how several neurologists ahve been intrigued by this phenomenon and have taken to investigate if the heart could be sentient along with the brain. I think the hypothesis proposed was that the heart could have a kind of emotional intelligence more embedded within our personalities and feelings than the brain. If such a hypothesis turns out to be correct, then perhaps the symbolic use of the heart being associated with emotion is truly more than just symbolic, and it functions as much more than just a pump(to put it simply). Fortunately I have been able to find a video of the documentary online so you don't have to navigate through any more of my disorganised babble and see for yourself what I am talkling about. You can view it from the link below, and please tell me what you make of this, as I would greatly appreciate the feedback. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2219468990718192402&q=terry+jones

I concede I did not read the first 2 links you provided and was a little dismissive. I should abstain from such behaviour. I guess I was unaware of the definition of a human shield as well. I suppose they have just 2 alternatives; to stay in the same position and get hit by a bomb or move into a civilian building or populated area and attract publicity and sympathy along with their death. This may not have been their intention initially though, maybe they expected Israel to attack civilians or even the UN. Israel however has not hesitated in attacking either. I find it depressing that such actions are now viewed as the only choice here. I still find the tactics employed by the Israeli army against civilians utterly disagreeable(I am not talking about just the bombings). On a separate point, I suppose if Hezbollah tried to fight Israel in the open, they would be wiped out quicker than a pack of fleas, so I suppose it may be rational from their perspective to hide in civilian areas and infrastructure.