JohnB

Immortality? We don't what to do with ourselves on a wet Sunday afternoon. Imagine a thousand years of Long Dark Teatimes of the Soul.

Gave Van Helsing the slip, did you?

There are many problems with the English language. Here is one suggested answer. Kaos in ce Klasrum By Dolton Edwards You must have often thought English spelling is harder than need be. Just look at words like cough, plough, rough, through, and thorough. YThe great writer Bernard Shaw wanted us to change our alphabet. Here's one way of doing it. In the first year, for example, we would suggest using "s" instead of soft "c". Sertainly all students in all sities of the land would reseive this news with joy. Then the hard "c" would be replased by "k,", sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up the konfusion in the minds of the spellers, but typewriters kould all be built with one less letter. There would be great exsitement when it was at last announsed that the troublesome "ph" would henseforth be written "f". This would make words like "fotograf" twenty persent shorter in print. In the third year publik interest in a new alfabet kan be expekted to have reatshed a point where more komplikated tshanges are nesessary. We would urge removing double leters whitsh have always ben a nuisanse and made speling more difikult. We would al agre that the horible mes of silent "e's" in our language is disgrasful. Therfor, we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ merily along as though we wer in an atomik ag of edukation. Sins by this tim it would be four years sins anywun had used the leter "c," we would then urg substituting "c" for "th." Kontinuing cis proses year after year, we would eventuali hav a reali sensibl writen languag. After twenti years wi ventyur tu sa cer wud bi no mor uv ces teribl trublsum difikultis. Even Mr. Yaw wi beliv wud be hapi in ce noleg cat his drims finali kam tru. Reader's Digest Treasury for Young Readers, © 1961 Adapted from Astounding Stories, © unknown

If you were, there may be some point to the discussion. Hollow Earth theories have been around for over 100 years. Mostly as the basis for a science fiction story. Google "Pellucidar" and see what I mean.

Only if we move Hobart to Kangaroo Island.

Sorry to come in late. I have often wondered along similar lines. It may be possible to create an apparent PM machine without breaking any laws. To give a hypothetical example. (And some definitions for it. ) If there were parallel universes, and if there was a way to bleed energy from one universe to another. From the POV of "Universe" (meaning the entirety of all universes) there would be no exception to Thermodynamics as the total energy of all the universes would remain the same. However, from the POV of those in the receiving universe, (the observeable universe) there would be an apparent increase in energy, thus apparently breaking laws of physics. Hence it might be possible (from the POV of the observable universe) to create an "over unity" device. While I don't think this has been done, nor do I have any idea about how it may be done, I believe it may be possible. Such a machine is only possible/impossible depending on your frame of reference.

Are you calling me higgerent???? Because you would be totally correct in this case. Many thanks for the explanation. As a stimulus for debate the equation is certainly useful, but I have seen it misused in magazines and articles over the years to "prove" that life must be incredibly rare in the galaxy. Personally, I believe that we are not alone. However, as we cannot even begin to fill in any of the blanks, any estimate (even mine) of the number of ETs must be nothing more than an ill informed guess. I accept that as a reality. My comments about primates stemmed from what appears to be the idea that if there is an ET, they will have the same basic form as us. I just can't see why this should be. I don't know if there were tri-lats in the Burgess shale deposits. I remember seeing a doco some years ago with reconstructions of some extremely early fossils. The one that stuck in my mind was one with 14 legs in 7 pairs, with 7 mouths along it's back. This was still a bi-lat of course, but the 7 pairs of legs was very unusual. IIRC it was around 20 cm long.

Not really sure I can agree with that. The Irish and Scots made up a large part of the original immigrants and still feel linked to their past.It's hard to describe what I mean here. During the formative years of Oz, Kiwiland and Canada, we were part of the "Empire", with all the mental pros and cons that go with that idea. We could and did look to "The Mother Country" for guidance in many areas. I suppose it was a case of "Well, they've been a democracy longer that we have and had more experience, so they might have some good ideas." For example, there are few rules about how our Governor General can do things, but there are many unwritten conventions about what he/she can and cannot do. These conventions shape the actions of the GG. After the American Revolution, the US had neither the rules or conventions to guide the actions of their President or their Government. They made it up as they went. With no great historical and cultural roots, this may be a reason why they are different. On the "other" topic, have a read about the debates surrounding Prof. Windschuttle, they are quite interesting. I'm waiting for the dust to settle, but some of our history books may need to be rewritten. Thanks for the sig comment, it turned up in an email along witth a number of other words and their definitions, but I thought it to be most appropriate for here. BTW, I was down in Sydney last week, what are you jokers going to do with Homebush? The place is like a bloody ghost town, even the Maccas closes at 5pm.

I stand in awe.

Sorry if this upsets anyone, but the Drake equation is a crock.... An equation where the answer is the result of 7 variables, the values of which are left up to the person doing the maths? The equation itself is logical, but since it can give any answer between 1 civ around 1 star to every star having civs, it is essentially meaningless. Would anyone care to fill in the blanks in the equation and provide proof of the accuracy of their inputted values? Also, what is the big deal about primates? If ET exists, there is no guarantee they are bilaterally symmetrical, let alone primates. They could be trilaterally symmetrical crabs for all we know. Early multicellular lifeforms on Earth tried a number of different designs, trilateral symmetry amongst them. For some reson, these forms died out leaving the bilaterals dominant. There is no reason to believe that this would be true elsewhere.

Scott, there was no policy of genocide in the early history of Australia. There could be something to the idea of cultural history having an effect. Australia, New Zealand, the US and part of Canada all sprang from english colonies. Free settlers or convicts, the colonies brought with them english history and traditions. In Oz, our system of government, our courts, even many of our laws have antecedents in British Law. The Magna Carta is still part of our laws. All these colonies gained their independence from the Empire, but only in the US was this by revolution. After the revolution there seemed to be a conscious effort in the US to break free of the traditions inherited from Britain. This would in effect leave the US without a set of cultural traditions. This could lead to a situation as ski-power suggests. It's a thought anyway. For some reason the US is different, this could be part of the reason why.

Yes. With millions of galaxies, each with millions of statr it is absurd to think that Earth would be the only one to have life. Their development would be anywhere from microbes to "Gods". Earth formed some 4.5 billion years ago, there would be planets that formed 10 billion years ago, how far would life evolve, how far would science evolve given a 5 billion year head start on us? So Earth is "special", is it? Whether they have or have not been here is fully debatable as are their reasons for their actions (if any). However since we cannot predict with any accuracy the actions and motivations of humans, I don't think we can even guess at why they would do or not do something.

Generally less, I think. This could be because our cities are smaller than yours, so there is less population pressure. By the same token, if population pressure was a major factor, then the schools of say, London, should have similar levels of violence as the US schools and I don't think they do. Does anyone have any figures? I don't really have a theory, but I do have thoughts. All the factors listed previously are present in all schools in all developed nations, but only in the US has the violence problem got to such a state. "Lock down" a school? We just do not have the need. There is one glaring psychological difference between the US students and here though. *Extremely broad brush alert. Generalisations involved* It appears that in the US a weapon, be it gun or knife is some sort sign of manhood. Down here it is the reverse, to need a weapon is to demonstrate your inferiority. People who use weapons are looked down on. A man uses his brains and his fists, only wankers need weapons. You see, it's not the availability of weapons, our stores sell everything up to Samurai swords, you can go into the "Valley" in Brisbane and buy a Saturday Night Special if you want, it's not hard to do. So I think the question is "Why do US students get a weapon, but others don't?" I'm firmly of the opinion that most "explanations" for school violence have more to do with the beliefs of those putting forward the theory than any actual explanation. For example, if you want to push some sort of "Social Justice" idea and claim that "poverty" is the cause of school violence, you can get more funding for your progams. It won't help stop school violence, but you get more money to spend on what you want and politicians appear to "be doing something". If you are an anti-gun campaigner, then blaming guns for school violence will help your cause, won't help the kids though. Perhaps the way schools are funded makes a difference too. In Oz, the government (State) Schools are funded by the state governments. The feds do give money, but it's part of the general "Education" budget and is given to the states, not the schools. (Except in the case of a special program, but these are generally rare.) Our state governments are very picky about where they want the feds sticking their noses. I'm not too sure that class size is a factor as Aussie schools regularly run from 25-30 students per class. Class size effects the quality of schooling, but I don't think it effects the violence. Another area of difference is school uniforms, we generally have them, you don't. It's really hard to make a fashion statement in a uniform. Noone wears "the latest" or "most expensive" outfits and there is only one set of "colours". This removes a source of division and contention. If you're interested, here is the website of my old High School.

You are of course correct. Perhaps I should have put "farming" in inverted commas. I was not so much referring to farming as organised agriculture, but more in the sense of "food production as a whole". As in, while subsistance level agriculture is not farming as it was developed in the Fertile Cresent, it is still "farming". Bottom line is that while they were operating at subsistance levels, productivity must be higher in an ice climate than one of more temperate latitudes. Does that clear up my meaning?

Just how do you take a screaming struggling 3 yo to the bedroom with at least gripping them tightly? Possibly leaving bruises? How are you going to ensure that they stay in their room? Lock them in? In some states of Australia what you describe is classified as child abuse. In a case in Western Australia, telling the child to clean their room was classed as child abuse. I and probably others appreciate your outlook and would have little problem if you were a social worker. (I know you are, but in a different area) You accept that not all forms of discipline work in all cases. There are however others in the field with very different outlooks. All training but no knowledge. Some of the case workers come out of Uni at say 24 with a head full of theory and no experience with children except for the occasional weekend babysitting. These people then pass judgement on the parents? They decide that the parents need help? I've met some like that and the damage they can cause is immense. Oh goody, that eases my mind. You mean so long as the investigator has no particular ideological barrow to push and I agree with every thing they say, I'll be fine? I don't know about the US, but the one thing missing in the Australian system is the acceptance of the fact that the social worker might be wrong. When was that exactly? The difficulty with this debate is that one persons discipline is another persons abuse.My father did not smack often, but when I needed a hiding I got one. I think I turned out fine. There is also the dichotomy that those who believe force should not be used on children to "improve" behaviour are quite in favour of force being used on the parents to "improve" theirs. Threats and usage of Legal restraints, physical restraints and imprisonment are quite common. But of course the Social Worker is a "professional" who is acting "for the good of the child" and is therefore immune to repercussions. While I certainly agree with all here that there are evil people who must not be allowed to abuse children. We must also avoid the crusaders who would abuse the system. No, they use Corporal Punishment, which is a different thing entirely.

It may not be virus at all. There are a few sites around like NamesDatabase dot Com that are a sort of contact network to find old school friends, that sort of thing. Sometimes they use a pervasive type of software that gets into the address book.This software is not really malicious but if your friend is registered with them, they will register your addition to her contacts and invite you to join. Or perhaps she ticked a section when she registered to allow the site to use her contacts list to invite her friends. That is possibly why the first email had a lot of her friends on it but the later ones didn't. I've recieved similar emails myself and they were always from this type of site when a friend registered. I take it from your comments that your AV did not register it as a virus?

The only thing I can add is that perhaps it is best to have your OS HDD as the Master on IDE 0 with your CD-ROM as slave. Your second HDD would be Master on IDE 1. This means that if you get a CD-RW it would be slave on IDE1. I've found that there is much better performance (especially for copying CDs) if the two CD drives are on different IDEs. It also means you only have to worry about the jumper settings on the CD-ROMs.

dsjgenius, I'm afraid I don't have an answer to your question. This is perhaps because your question is incomplete. The answers so far given are also, I think, wrong. All of the factors listed occur in all western nations, yet the other nations don't get the shootings. In my state of Queensland all the factors listed are present in all our schools. We actually have more guns than people. So why don't Australian schools have the shootings? Any answer you get or give that does not explain this disparity between the US and other developed nations is therefore incomplete. For example, it's easy to say "poverty", but why don't poor kids in Australia pick up a gun? Your question is perhaps better phrased as "Why are American schools more violent than those of other developed nations?" To look at it another way, the idea that a student might be carrying does not even cross the mind of 99.9% of Aussie students, yet the worry is there for US students. Why are your schools different? Until you can answer this type of question, any reason you may give for shootings is at best incomplete and at worst, totally wrong.

Might I suggest not drinking to excess?

While the discussion is about the last few thousand years, the forces that shaped those few thousand years are much older. Europeans (and those of European descent) are more expansionistic than other sections of H. Sapiens. The Chinese for example had the crossbow as a standard infantry weapon around 1500 BC. If they had wished to, they could have conquered the world, but they didn't want to. Nor are the African peoples expansionistic. Europeans are different, the question is "Why?". Why was there pressure to develope agriculture in Europe but not in Africa? Why was it necessary to have large surplusses on European farms? One point so far not mentioned is the fact that when H. Sapiens went to Europe, they were competing against two great factors; 1. An established population of H. Neanderthalis. 2. A bloody great Ice Age that locked up half the continent in ice while giving the other half horrible winters. The pressure was therefore on the settlers to get one years worth of supplies out of a six month farming period. Surplusses were required for survival, the bigger the better. In Africa this pressure did not exist, so subsistance farming and following the meat herds was enough to ensure the survival of the group. Hence, no similar agricultural development. So given the pressures involved, more land and more complete use of the land was vital for the survival of the European tribes. (We're still talking some 40,000 years ago here.) I think this led to a form of mental evolution. Those who were happy with subsistance level living died off in a few winters. Those that were left were the ones who wanted more land. They also needed to get every bit of use out of the land they had. They still farmed at "subsistance" level but subsistance level agriculture in the area of an Ice Age, if applied to a non Ice Age area gives large surplusses. This led to a mental division of the Human race. One group thought "The land will provide all we need without effort, so we are happy here." The second group thought "The land will not provide all we need, so we need more and we need to use every bit of it." Because of the climatic conditions prevailing at the time, there was no other way for the second group to think and survive. Fast forward now to around 8,000 years ago. The Ice Age is over, but the tribes spreading over Europe still have the mentality that "The bigger the surplus the better, you never know when there will be a hard winter." Whether by extra land or better technology. This is where the geography of Europe comes into play. If you want more land, then you need to find ways to allow your warriors to cross mountains or seas. Getting more land reqires more determination against the odds and better technology. Also note that as you move from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age an extra pressure is introduced. The need for raw iron. If you don't have any, you need to find some. And when you find some you need to be able to get it home in large enough quantities to be useful. You also need to be able to defend your mines and shipping. This leads to the development of better shipping technologies as well as better weapons and battle techniques. Also note that in Europe the climate changed dramatically. Therefore survival required new techniques and technologies. The people needed to do things in new ways to survive. They had to be willing to adopt (if necessary steal) new ideas from their neighbours. Those that did not, died. This pressure to embrace change was not present elsewhere. As I pointed out above, subsistance level agriculture in an Ice climate has to be at least twice as productive as subsistance level agriculture elsewhere. With the end of the Ice Age this led to larger and larger surplusses for each tribe. This meant that a correspondingly smaller percentage of the population were required as farmers to feed the rest of the population. So a larger percentage was available for permanent division of labour. A Blacksmith could be a blacksmith all year without worrying about where his next meal was coming from. I therefore submit that the mental makeup of those who formed the early European cultures and those that followed them was originally forged by the hard times of the Ice Age. That is why Europeans have a different outlook to other sections of H. Sapiens. Please feel free to shoot me down in flames, but I think I've got the basic pressures about right.

G'day mates. I wuz just avin a gander at this thread thingy and saw it's about stereotypes. So what if some people are flat out like a lizard drinkin tryin to use more than two fingers to type? I'll have you lot know that we Aussies is a very learned and Philosophical nation. Proof here. IIRC, "Posh" was an old shipping term concerning passengers. It had something to do with giving 1st class a good view from their cabin. Their luggae was marked as "Port Out, Starboard Home". Or P.O.S.H. AtomicMX, how can you not love Tequila? After getting a bottle of Jose Cuervo Family Reserve, I found it made my single malts taste like battery acid. Man that stuff is smooth.

Out of curiousity, if IQ is Mental Age/Physical Age*100 how the hell is this "Mental Age" defined? As far as I can see you can't actually define a persons "Mental Age", it must be intrinsically variable.

Coral, if I misunderstood you, I apologise. In the section I quoted, it appeared that your community would have gone out of it's way to make these people feel unwanted. It also came across that you were quite happy with this. I must admit it says volumes about your community that they felt they had to "take the temperature of local feelings". The details of their case may indeed be fascinating, but if you can't prove it in a court, then they must be treated as innocent. Period. This is the whole point, who's opinion? On what do they base it? How do you ensure that the person making the decision is acting in the best interests of the child and not their own Ideology? A person with fundamentalist religious feelings would think that it is "in the best interests of the child" to remove them from parents not of their particular sect, there are some radicals in the feminist movement that think if the household contains a male, then the child is in danger. I assume you would disagree with these extremists, but can you show anyone why your opinion is better? And when innocents are accused, do they not pay a price? When a teacher is accused it is front page news, but when he is aquitted because a student made up the accusations you would be lucky to read it on page 20. Yet his life and career is destroyed. Quite often they are forced to move. Why? Because people have formed their opinions on the accusation, the truth be damned. I know of no such law in any nation. (Thank goodness.) However it behooves us to use that principle as a guide for our actions. To do anything else is trial by media and public opinion. Oh goody, mob rule. If you understand that mob mentality is dangerous, why do you advocate it's breeding ground? So truth is at best a secondary concern behind telling a good story? This is how you make a better world? Fairy tales? Righting wrongs that may not even have happened? That is a scary world you are talking about.

In tests I've done, anywhere from 130 to 140. I doubt this to be correct as my wife tells me that if I work hard and study long (And if I bribe someone), I may someday achieve the position of "Second Junior Assistant Village Idiot". Her unswerving faith encourages me.

Coral, in answer to your original question. Yes, the presumption of innocence is paramount. Unfortunately, you are defeating a number of your own arguments. No, you didn't propose it, you did it. There is more than one way to run someone out of town. (BTW, I have no idea who these people were.) Of course everyone has an opinion, that is obvious. We don't delude ourselves into thinking we don't. I don't know how many times I've watched the news of someone being charged and thought "They got him/her". I now make a concious effort not to think these things as the person is "charged", not convicted. No offense, but that is exactly the thinking that leads to lynch law. For by that statement, it is "practically an obligation" for a racist to remove non whites from his neighbourhood. (Or vice versa) You cannot object because he would only be "improving his environment according to his own beliefs". Slippery slope alert.