Severian

I prefer IE, but Firefow is free, so don't trust me, try it out and see!

So if infinity doesn't exist, how many decimal places do you need to write doen [math]\pi[/math]?

I have a rather swanky BMW, with all the gadgets - AC, seat heating, leather seats, GPS sat nav, cd player, etc etc

I thought you might like to know that today a panel of 'wise men' have decided on the technology to be used in the planned high energy e+e- linear collider. They have chosen superconducting technology. From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3583658.stm And the International Linear Collider site (the press release is on the left): http://www.interactions.org/linearcollider/

That is a really bad reason to do a PhD. I have a PhD (in physics) and the 'Dr' thing wears off really fast. 9 times out of 10 I don't even use it becasue people either get shirty (somehow thinking that I think I am better than them) or can't understand that I am not a medical doctor. I makes no difference to anything in life either, unless you need it for a research job. People always claim that you are more likely to get bumped up into business class on flights, but I fly almost once a month, and in the 100 or so flights I have taken since my PhD I haven't been bumped up once. For jobs outside research it makes no difference either. In fact I have heard people say it is a disadvantage for two reasons. Firstly you have been taught to think in a way which the company has no control over. They like to train you to think themselves so that you think in 'their way'. Secondly, you are older when they hire you, so you are either at the bottom of the pay ladder, or too expensive for your level. Even wanting to do pure research for a career is not a good reason to do a PhD because research jobs are often hard to come by (this depends on the area though). Pure research is often funded principly by the government, so funds are lacking and new appointments few. What few there are are very ofter fixed term. The only reason you should ever think about doing a PhD is because you are interested in the subject and want to do the PhD for its own sake. Imagine that at the end of the PhD that it is taken away from you again, and you get no credit for it - would you still want to do it? If you say yes, then go for it. If no, then go do something else.

They have taken over our TV and are suppressing hetrosexual rights of expression! Have you seen how many gay orientated TV shows there now are on UK TV? I can't switch on the box anymore without being assailed by pictures of burly men in thongs! I switch over from 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' only to find Graham Norton prancing about on the other channel. Although I am not really being serious, I must state for the record, that I can't stand shows like 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy'. I find them incredibly demeaning; it is reinforcing stereotypes of both homo and hetro males to suggest that the 'straight guy' has no taste or dress sense.

Well into hell now.... but I really need some sleep.... It is a bit of a relief that you lose your torch in hell, so they can't make it too dark.

Its a fair cop! But I still think it would be a good idea to separate marriage from the state. I don't believe that marriage should give you tax breaks (it doesn't in the UK), and all the extra rights you are supposed to have could very easily be set up with a simple state registration system. (And I would like to see this registration devoid of any assumptions like who you are sleeping with.) That would then leave 'marriage' to whatever church or social group you belong. There would be no discrimination and no reason for the right-wing or left-wing to complain.

Pity this thread doesn't let you see who voted what...

I have never been very impressed with Penrose. Weinberg's books on QFT are good though (although he has some funny conventions).

Doom 3 gets a bit predictable after a while (about 10 minutes in fact). (I am currently in the biological specimen section of delta labs)

I have recently discovered that I am anti-philosophers.

What is wrong with that? You are making moral judgements on other people's behaviours. Hasn't it already? Why not? Then do away with tax breaks for marriages. You are already paying extra taxes to make up the taxes which married couples avoid.

I am not sure I like the idea of debates being formalised like they are now. I don't want to get involved in formal debates because I know as soon as I challenge someone suddenly I will have to finish a paper or go away on some emergeny trip or something, not have time to post and lose by default. I would prefer if we could have a section where the mods would pick up particularly lively discussions which have taken place on the boards and ask posters to vote on who 'won' the argument. It is ofetn not clear if the general readers are with you or against you, and it would be fun to know how convincing one's arguments have been. (My recent spat with Franc28 in the religion and philosophy section springs to mind.)

I have never read it but it sounds interesting. I think this is the key: how do we define 'marriage'. This is obviously a bone of contention because it is the definition of marriage which all the fuss of gay marriage is about. You clearly define it as being based on a vow of sex behaviour, but is these really true? Why should sex have anything to do with it? Isn't this just another artificial restriction (like 'between a man and a woman')?

There was a touch of irony in there.... ...but also a grain of truth. I don't understand why two men would want to get married but I have to conceed that my lack of comprehension is of no consequence. Phi's response reminded me very much of the anti-gay lobby's response to gay marriage, willing to define marriage on their own terms only. It is only a matter of degree.

Pity.... if we had come to the conclusion that time doesn't exist, I was goint to take the rest of today off.

The Lagrange point between two gravitational bodied is just that - a 'point'. Only at exactly that point will an object feel no force, and as one moves away from the point, the gravitational force will get stronger. So an extended body can only be stationary if its centre of mass is right on the Lagrange point and the forces holding the body together are stronger than the gravitational forces at its extremities. Water isn't very strongly held together, so even the rather weak gravitational forces at the edge of the ball of water will be enough to suck some of it away. This will disturb the centre of mass and destroy the stability of the water, letting it be sucked into the black holes. A ball of iron would be more interesting.... (Sounds like an Alastair Reynolds book...)

What a bigot! What business is it of yours what they do or don't get up to in their bedroom? Why do you want to force people to have sex? Surely that have as much right to happiness in their lives as anyone else. I have been advocating this for some time. Marriage should be completely divorced (no pun intended) from sex. People who are not married have sex and plenty of married couples don't anymore, so why should we assume that sex is normal in a marriage. In fact, if too best friends want to have the same rights and tax breaks as a married couple, why shouldn't they be able to withour the requirement that they are sleeping together. Why not take it further too, and allow more than one peron to join this union? We could have marrieges more like clubs of like minded people - a sort of mini-communism in action. I think that would be quite cool.

Heh. I meant "rejecting traditional society" in a good way, in that they have been strong enough to stand up for what they believe and say who they really are, rather than cowering in the closet, ashamed of themselves and put down by society. They have not been worried about appearances and offending the sensibilities of the middle class. By contrast, I see the campaigning for gay marriage as showing that many of them (by no means all) are actually rather concerned about appearances after all. I suppose one could see it as standing up for themselves and their 'rights', but I can't help but see it as a lot of whining to try and force the rest of society to accept them.

That is an argument for banning hetrosexual marriages too - not increasing the applicability of marriage.

I understand what you are saying, but I still don't see why it would be an emotive issue. I don't understand why gay people would want to get married. I am not legally allowed to own a hand gun, and I suppose I could whine about my rights and organise parades in the street to persuade the powers that be to change their laws, but since I don't particularly miss having a hand gun I don't. I don't see anything of importance that gay people are prevented from doing. Of course, obviously a lot of gay people do see getting married as 'important' but given their rejection of 'traditional' society, that attitude puzzles me.

So do you think that people who live together but are not married are second class citizens too?