JohnB

You're right of course. The problem is perhaps worse in the US with only two major parties. In Oz, there are three major and around five minor parties. They all put up candidates in most electorates, so for the pollie who wants to keep his job, things can get a bit hairy. We had a party start in Queensland that pulled 23% of the primary vote in their first campaign. Scared the daylights out of some pollies. Yah. I actually felt sorry for most Americans, it seemed the moderates on both sides weren't getting a look in. I sort of got the feeling that if a moderate party had appeared, they'd have romped home. People would vote for them just to shut up the major parties. We have saying down here. They kiss our arse for three weeks and we kiss theirs for three years. Same everywhere I suppose.

Maybe his real name is "Bester", the Avatar makes me wonder.

We have been broadcasting for 100 years or so. The increase in the number of radio and TV stations worldwide means that we are (possibly?) the second brightest object in the system. Anyone watching from somewhere else would be able to see this increase in radio transmissions and (hopefully) conclude life in our system. Don't forget space is incredibly huge. Even if someone from Alpha Centari was watching us for the last 2,000 years, if they gave up listening to us in 1890, they wouldn't have heard a thing and wouldn't know we are here.

How do you know my nightmares?

Coral, I only used the Gay Rights thing as an example, I didn't mean it to be taken as the prime cause. To be honest, looking from the outside, the campaign on both sides was a joke. Swift boaters, generals writing letters supporting Kerry. "Shrub". There was more time and effort put into insulting the other side than discussing the issues. When the issues did come up, they were always described in hysterical terms. (Remember, I'm in Australia so I didn't see all that you saw. My viewpoint is probably scewed. but that's how it looked.) But I mean, really, you people were arguing about who would make a better President on the basis of what each had done or not done during a war 30 years ago. You've got to be kidding. "War record" was a big part of the debate, and you wonder why some people think you may be warlike? [Extremely broad brush mode] "Middle America" has an ingrained dislike for "Washington", "Government" and "People from big cities telling us what's best for us". If Hillary Clinton gets the Dems nomination in 2008, she will go down, big time. The people who used to lean to the left "liberal" side, now lean the other way. The Dems are percieved as being run by a white wine swilling elite (we call them "Cabernet Communists" ) who think they have some sort of moral "right" to tell the rest of the country how to live. I'm not saying that's how it is, I'm saying that's how it's percieved. If the Dems want any sort of chance, they have to change that perception and put up a candidate that doesn't typify it. Look at the Democrat Presidents and where they're from; Grover Cleveland 1893-97. New Jersey. Woodrow Wilson 1913-21 Virginia. Franklin D, Roosevelt 1933-45 New York. Harry S. Truman 1945-53 Missouri. John F. Kennedy 1961-63 Massachusetts. Lyndon Johnson 1963-69 Texas. James Earl (Jimmy) Carter 1977-81 Georgia. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton IV 1993-2001 Arkansas. So in the last 115 years, most of the winning Dem candidates came from the "heartland" states. A New Yorker hasn't won in 60 years. Add to that, the fact is that the Dems have been losing ground steadily at local and state levels too, as well as losing Congressional seats. The only reason for that is that the Dem policies are not what the majority of people want. For the vast majority of people, it's not who you like (or who's policies you prefer), but who you dislike least. The "Heartland" states join the military in a greater proportion than the big cities and they are proud of that fact. The Dems are percieved as being somewhat "anti-military" which means they are percieved as being against something that "Middle America" is proud of. If you are against something I believe in, I ain't gonna vote for ya. And that is exactly the type of snide, superior comment that gets right up their noses. From their POV, if that's how Dems view their beliefs and opinions, then they won't associate with or vote for them. [/Extremely broad brush mode] In a nutshell, if the Dems wish to have any chance of winning the Presidency in 2008, then they need policies that the majority of people will like, and a candidate that the majority of people will vote for. If you can't do these two things, you don't deserve to win, and you won't. That's an Aussies take on the whole thing anyway.

I think I see what you mean. But how do you know where to draw the line?

It also proves how little you achieve electorally when you go around telling people they're wrong and then asking them to vote for you. From the figures I've seen (and from listening to NPR) it's obvious that "America's Heartland" didn't agree with the Democrat policies. It's known as the Bible belt, do you really think they would back for example "Gay Rights"? Just out of curiousity, do you think the Dems are winning votes now, by telling these people that they are stupid? Saying "You're dumb, you're easily scared, you don't understand..." this is a vote winning strategy? To get people to vote for you, they have to want to vote for you. Insulting and condescending statements are not how to win friends and influence people.

Down here it's probably the easiest way to get people not to vote for you. Budullewraagh, are you suggesting it's better for a culture to remain static than to adopt facets of other cultures? That to me is like cooking with only one ingredient, or painting with only one colour. Also the concept of "preserving cultural purity" is very close to "preserving racial purity" with all the inherent dangers. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I knew you were going to say that. Sorcerer, I'm disappointed, you still use fingers for typing?

@fault=yet to score Tennis, more?

Ahhh, there's hope for you yet. Tetra, I wouldn't be too hard on Howard, we had a left wing PM who enjoyed calling his opposition "scumbags", remember? Having said that, the shift to personal attacks is not something I've been happy with in Australian politics. If you have to resort to personal attacks, it means you've run out of sensible arguments. Or the creation of a new and better one.

Hi mate, how are the exams going? Shouldn't you be studying? Or is cnducting an internet debate how you unwind? I actually agree with you on testing, you can't test for everything but, it just seems that some of the tests are a bit short and sometimes miss some biggies. Worse if the company involved doesn't give out all the figures. On Thalidomide, I brought it up to show how the "scientific base" of medicine failed dismally. I realize that your comment was of the "Silver Lining" variety, but I just wanted to remind you that thousands still live with the dark cloud. For the profession it was "Oh dear, let's change the system so we don't make that mistake again." For those thousands effected? They're still living with it. (BTW, I expect that some Doctors are still having nightmares about the results of their prescribing the drug, so they count as victims too.) The thing is, as you say, medicine is not a science. It's a business. People, (Doctors, etc) provide a service for money. Unlike many, I expect a Doctor to be a human being. If the choice is between their "principles" and putting food on their childrens table, I think it's an odds on bet which way they'll jump. Most would expect that of a plumber or carpenter, why should a Doctor be any different? This leads to the situation where diagnosis becomes based on "opinion", not "science." To illustrate; The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in it's 1994 (yes, I know it's old, but that doesn't change the figures) report "Australia's Health 1994" looked at, among other things the incidence of Myringotomy in Australia. (Page 294) In 1986, in New South Wales, 2,954 of these operations were performed. By 1992 the figure had grown to 11,186. Huh? A fourfold increase in 6 years? They suddenly found that many extra cases worthy of surgery? Perhaps. Australia is a reasonably homogonous place with the lifestyles and health of it's citizens not varying markedly from state to state. Yet the rate of this surgery in 1992 was twice as high in South Australia as NSW. SA had 3.5 times the rate as Tasmania and 1.5 times the rate of Victoria. Are the South Australians really that much more in need of surgery, or do the SA surgeons just prefer to cut? If the latter, is there a scientific basis for this preference? I read some time in the last year or so, (I'll try to find a link or the article if you wish) that the rate of Tonsillectomies and Appendectomies in SA is something like 8 times the rate in Queensland. It would seem that surgical intervention in SA is based more on "Fad, Fashion or Opinion" than on anything science may have to say on the matter. How do the rates compare between say, Manchester and London? The people live near (from an Aussies POV anyway ) each other, their food will be similar, the rates should be similar if treatment is based on science. If there is a large disparity, what is the scientific reason? You will perhaps note that I haven't brought up Flouridation of water yet. Personally I'm opposed to mass medication, so I'm against it for philosophical reasons. I'm still reading various reports for the scientific aspect, but so far it doesn't look good for the pro flouride group. Melbourne has had flouridation for years, Brisbane never had it, yet the incidence of tooth decay in both cities is almost exactly the same. Doesn't seem to be any "scientific base" for putting rat poison in the water yet. Cheers, and again, Good Luck with the exams.

Considering the level of debate in most forums prior to the election, I'd say their whole system is a joke. Tetrahedrite and I may be at the opposing ends of the Australian political spectrum (I, of course, being on the side of goodness, light and Bundaberg Rum, while he is a pinko, commie, VB drinking, New South Welshman. ) but in Australian political debate I would never even dream of descending to the levels of insult I saw then. The biggest thing I noted was the apparent complete lack of respect for opposing opinions. From both sides. The "You disagree with me, therefore you are an idiot" attitude was generally done away with in this country 20 years ago.

Busy. If you would rather adjourn the debate for a while, I understand. Exams are far more important than an internet conversation. Good luck with them. FWIW, the Ethical Essay should be a snap. I've seen a number of your posts around here and you seem a very ethical person.

Partying does that to you young fellas, you just can't keep up. Catch you later.

*looks at protective armour and glasses lying on floor, wonders, "Why are they there?"* What did the Geologist say to when asked if he liked his wifes new dress? "It makes you look very spathic, my dear." *finds out*

I'll put the question here as it would be embarrasing to put it into a "proper" science forum. If under Quantum mechanics, an electron potentially exists everwhere in the Universe at the same time. And if it doesn't actually exist until we actually look at it. Then; Why does the Universe need more than one electron? As can be seen, my knowledge of Quantum mechanics is slightly less than my knowledge of.....well anything, really. I came across the question recently and thought it an interesting philosophical/theoretical one.

I'll leave it to "those who know" for the technical side, but for me. No, I don't think we're alone. It's a big Universe with "billion and billions" of stars and planets. If life can evolve here I think it unreasonable to think it can't evolve somewhere else. As to why we haven't heard from them, like I said it's a big Universe. For example, we have only been transmitting radio for about 100 years or so. So only the planets within 100 lightyears even know we are here, the rest haven't got our signals yet. Remember it will take some 50,000 years for our first radio waves to reach the other side of the Galaxy, and even then they'll probably be too faint to pick up. Let's suppose that there is a civilisation 80 lightyears away. They would have picked up our first faint signals about 20 years ago. (That's if they were looking our way in the first place.) Over the course of the next 20 years, (taking us to "now") they would have seen the signals strengthen and said "Qhjkkiekjk jgopikl;jn jkkhjii;l;" (Translation: Cool, there's a planet with a radio over there. We're not alone.) and sent a message to us. If they sent it today, right now, this minute, it would not arrive here for 80 years. It's a big Universe. Read a book called "The Listeners" by James E. Gunn. It's fiction, but gives a good feel of the time scales involved. Or maybe... "The changes I noted were taking place periodically, and with such a clear suggestion of numbers and order that they were not traceable to any cause then known to me. I was familiar of course with such electrical disturbances as are produced by the sun, Aurora Borealis and earth currents and I was as sure as I could be of any fact that these variations were due to none of these causes....It was some time afterwards when the thought flashed upon my mind that the disturbances I had observed might be due to intelligent control...The feeling is constantly growing on me that I had been the first to hear the greeting of one planet to another...." Nikola Tesla 1900.

Thank you for your reasoned reply. (I got an error for the clinical evidence link though.) Re the helicobacter, sorry if it didn't make it into print back then, but the fact remains that the local GP here was curing duodenal ulcers in the 1940s. And asking all patients not to tell anyone. When the big announcement was made back in 1982, a number of oldsters I know got a big chuckle out of it. In some ways you are making my case for me with some of your other points. To put a drug on the market without full testing, is an act of faith; "We don't believe it will do too much harm." Think about this for a minute. We don't know it's safe and we don't know if it will have horrific side effects, so we'll give it to thousands of people and find out. This you call having a "scientific" base? But you're saying that medicine is based on scientific research, there must have been data, mustn't there? Where is it? Or could it be that medicine isn't quite as "scientific" in it's approach as you might think? I'm sure that makes those affected feel much better. How can that be? Medicine is a science isn't it? It has scientific precepts we are told. 1 plus 1 always equals 2 in every science, except in medicine where it's just an opinion that it might. Re Theresa' Asthma. Poor inhaler technique is depressingly common. (I've actually seen people spray the ventolin into the air in front of their face and take a deep breath.) Her technique was checked though and found perfect. All that is actually beside the point. She has not changed her technique. Previously she needed the drugs, now she does not. There were no notable changes to lifestyle or workplace. The only difference between then and now is the visits to the Alternative practitioner. The point shown in the very large Helsinki and Mr Fit trials was that in the case of moderate hypertension, drugs made no difference to the mortality rate. Where is the scientific basis for a treatment that doesn't have an effect? Of course the drugs lower blood pressure, that is what they are designed to do. There are many causes for moderate hypertension, but moderate hypertension isn't a disease. The BBC article is a good example. Yes, the new drug is highly effective in lowering BP. So what? In very large trials it's been shown that lowering BP (for moderate hypertension) won't make you live any longer. If I can put it this way. If I had moderate hypertension, I could take drugs and live say 40 more years. (I'm 43) Or I could not take the drugs and live just as long. So why take the drugs? On what scientific base should I take the drugs? They won't help me live longer, or, on the evidence better. In fact, I would be more at risk from long term side effects, wouldn't I? There appears to be a depressing tendency over the last 20 odd years to classify symptoms as diseases. It's much older than that, but it seems to gathering pace. Take the names of some diseases. Tonsillitis is a simple one. I get a bacterial infection in my tonsils and they swell up and go red. I go to my GP and he says I have Tonsillitis, as if it's a disease. I respond with "No sh*t Sherlock, my tonsils are inflamed, I know that, that's why I'm here." The inflamed tonsils are a symptom, the disease is a bacterial infection. The cure is therefore a broad spectrum antibiotic. (I'm not aware of viral Tonsillitis, but I suppose it must happen. In that case antibiotics are useless, so I guess it would be "wait and see if we need to take them out." Which seems the only sensible thing to do.) There is a double standard involved sometimes too. If I go to an alternative therapist and get better, that's "unscientific alternative medicine", if my GP gives me a sugar tablet and I get better, it's "Placebo Effect". This may put a name to it, but it doesn't explain why it is or how it actually works. (But it has an official sounding name that we can file odd results under.) I agree. The problem is that somtimes anecdotal evidence is all we have. Some time ago (down here) a number of parents were pointing the finger at a food additive (number 82, I think) as a possible cause for ADHD. These parents found that by not giving their children bread containing this additive, they no longer needed Ritalin. What they were asking for was a scientific study to see if they were mistaken, because all they had was anecdotal evidence. Noone would listen to them because all they had was anecdotal evidence, and they couldn't get anywhere with a study because noone would start one without scientific evidence. Catch 22. Another excellent example is Dr. Holt in Western Australia. He got blacklisted by the profession over 20 years ago for claiming to have a potential "cure" for some cancers. The standard argument is that he has no "scientific" backing for his patients claims and therefore should be disregarded. His patients argue that the thousands of them still alive would be a good reason to have a scientific study to settle the issue. It took a current affairs program publisizing the controversy to actually get a study started. Dr. Holt is a member of the Royal Colleges and has an entire alphabet after his name. (Literally) He was head of the WA Cancer Institute for years. When someone like that makes a claim like that, I would expect both the laity and the medical profession to at least look scientifically at the technique and give him a fair hearing. No such luck. He was deregistered and blacklisted, without any study being done. Read a bit more on the arguments here. (Not the best site, but it's got the basic story right.) http://www.cam.net.uk/home/Nimmann/healing/john-holt-cancer-treatment.htm In the case of Dr. Holt, he tried to document his findings. They were refused because had been blacklisted. So no medical scientist would study the technique because the Doctor involved was blacklisted by the profession and noone in the profession would look at his claims because the medical scientists hadn't studied them. A circular reasoning that has nothing to do with science of any kind. All I've really been trying to say is that medicine is a dicipline where rather than good "Science", "Best Guess" and "Opinion" often play a very large role. And in that respect, it is no more valid or invalid than many Alternative Therapies.

Mobos frying PSUs? That is a new one, but quite possible. I somehow think that the store you bought the Mobo from didn't really "test it" like they told you.

I do remember reading a similar article some time ago. Something about the underwire interfering with the Lymphatic system causing a build up of toxins. Possible, but not proven. But this guy is waaaay over the top. That whole board is hilarious.

DrugAddict, please don't think I'm against Modern Medical Practice (MMP), I'm not. I'm of the opinion that MMP doesn't have all the answers, so the therapist I see depends on the percieved condition. If I have an infection or need a broken bone set, then a GP is the closest and easiest answer. Where I have a severe problem with MMP is it's underlying belief that the body is, in essence, nothing more than a machine. This basic belief is unproven (and in my belief, false) and therefore a "non scientific" base for diagnosis. Yet each of the remedies and procedures that are dispensed with were put forward as "proven" or "safe" when introduced. How can someone claim to have scientific "proof" of the effectivness of a treatment, only to have it thrown away as useless or dangerous 30 years later? The only logical conclusion is that there was no proof to begin with. That is, if you'll pardon the expression, bullshit. Bacteria causing stomach ulcers, and the cure for them was known as far back as the 1940's. The cure was simple and effective but Doctors couldn't tell because the cure wasn't "sactioned". We had the stupid situation of Doctors telling patients how to cure the ulcer, saying "But don't tell anyone I told you." I know this one from familial experience. It's often bloody woeful, and opposing evidence is often ignored. Let's take some basic "scientifically proven" medicines and treatments. Starting with the biggy, Thalidomide. "Proven" and "safe" for mothers to take as a treatment for morning sickness? Whoever "proved" that one should turn in his white coat. Ritalin, used to drug supposed ADHD sufferers into a more pliable state. Firstly there is no scientific proof that the condition known as ADHD even exists. Yes there are "difficult" children, but the proof that they are suffering from a "disease" that needs "treatment" is nonexistant. To quote the psychiatrist Peter Breggin; "Hyperactivity (HA) is the most frequent justification for drugging children. The difficult-to-control male child is certainly not a new phenomenon, but attempts to give him a medical diagnosis are the product of modern psychology and pshchiatry. At first psychiatrists called hyperactivity a brain disease. When no brain disease could be found, they changed it to "minimal brain disease" (MBD). When no minimal brain disease could be found, the profession transformed the concept into "minimal brain dysfunction". When no mininal brain dysfuntion could be demonstrated, the label became attention deficit disorder. Now it's just assumed to be a real disease, regardless of the failure to prove it so. Biochemical imbalance is the code word, but there's no more evidence for that than there is for actual brain disease." Ritalin has been used for over 30 years but there is very little to zero proof that it actually works. (Except in the short term.) I point you to the work of Howard M. Schachter Ba. Pharm. It's a .pdf of his meta-analysis. http://www.laleva.cc/choice/Ritalin_Studies.pdf Using 62 randomized trials involving a total of 2897 children. The important part is that the trials lasted on average 3 weeks, with the longest being 28 weeks. Is it "scientifically sound" to prescribe a drug for years on the basis of a 6 week trial? I think not. Or my personal favourite. "Electo-Convulsive Shock Therapy". Strap a person down (so they hopefully won't break anything) and run an electric current through them. If it occurred in any place other than a hospital it would fall under the UN catagory of "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" and it's proponents in court for Crimes against Humanity. But they're Doctors using a "proven" and "effective" treatment for the good of the patient aren't they? No, sorry, the treatment was discontinued in the 1980s because it didn't cure anybody. Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Pity it only took 40 odd years of frying people's brains to work that one out. And where was the "proof" that originally backed the treatment? Oops, there wasn't any. Theresa was an chronic asthma sufferer. Her medications were Becloforte 4 puffs 4 times daily, Ventolin 4 puffs 4 times daily, both Prednisone and Cortizone when she was hospitalized (about every 6 months, almost weekly when she was a teenager. And we have a ventilator now gathering dust on a shelf.). Since seeing an alternative therapist the dose is 2 puffs of Ventolin before she goes to bed. Next question? Add to that (for example) the Helsinki Heart Trial showed that while a drug regimen may lower your blood pressure (of the 4,000 men involved, the 2,000 in the drug treated group had 27 less heart attacks, but the mortality rate was medicated 45 :- unmedicated 42.) it won't statistically effect the mortality rate. So where is the "scientific proof" of the effectiveness of medication? The "Mr Fit" trial in the US is also enlightening in that regard. So the point of the drug regimen is...? The simple reality is that MMP is neither as "scientific" or "proven" as the medical fraternity would like us to believe. Any arguments that MMP is "Scientifically sound" or "based" can be shown to be untrue extremely easily. The only real difference between us is that you view Alternative Therapies with good Scientific Scepticism, but I view both with it. As soon as I'm assured that something is "Scientifically proven" or "safe", I know I'm hearing a lie, as there is no such thing as a "safe" drug. You seem to be more interested in whether a treatment is "proven", I'm more interested in whether it "works". Scientific study or not, if 5,000 peple say a treatment works, I'm inclined to believe them. (Or at least give them the benefit of the doubt.) Sorry for the length of the post, but I feel it is an important subject.

If the craft involved in the combat have interstellar capabilities, then missiles using the same engine technology would be the obvious option. If shields keep pace with weapons systems, we may finish up with a couple of great big magnets and two or three hundred guys with hand weapons. (E.E. Doc Smith had the idea 60 years ago.) The other thing is, the weapons wouldn't be anything we can currently accept as possible. The existence of FTL ships would mean that our current "laws" would have to get a major reworking to include the principles involved. Hence, the wepons would be based on principles now considered "impossible". We are in the position of a scientist in the Elizabethan Age trying to predict what future warfare would be like. As he would have accepted as axiomatic that "man can't fly" he would never consider the shape of combat with aircraft involved. Bloodhound, "Mass Drivers"? Using them is a crime against sentience. The "Rods From God" is a development of the "Thor" idea of the 1960s. Man made meteor shower. The idea was developed in Ferry Pournelle's book "Footfall" where it was used against us. A good book where combat occurs using only known technologies.

There is a side to that technology that rarely if ever gets mention. It's always "Brisbane to London in 2 hours, won't that be great?" What seems to be constantly ignored is the fact that on the day that happens, every fighter jet and most air to air missiles become obsolete. There will need to be a completely new generation of combat aircraft and weapons systems. Someone's going to make a packet.

I hope mine was "Mama" or "Dada", but it was probably "bugger".