HAL9000

In space no one can hear you [add verb of choice]! -------------------- In space no one can smell your [noun of choice]!

Ladygooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I don't understand is why the Swiss > authorities decided to arrest him now? Apparently > he has a house in Gstaad and has obviously been in > Switzerland many times before. He had originally fled to France where his status as a French citizen (he holds dual nationality) prevented his extradition. Presumably, the case went cold before formal arrest warrants were issued to any other countries such as Switzerland, until the case was reviewed recently and his scheduled presence there was noticed.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... something about HAL's doom mongering ... > brings to mind those who ... predicted the > widespread burning of crops if we introduced > these new fangled steam locomotive things. Or the risks of nuclear reactors before Chernobyl? You aren't that na?ve - what are you really trying to say here?

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand the sudden interest in his capture Apparently, Polanski's lawyer made some sort of legal application in California recently that caused the file to be re-opened. The police then googled his name and found a website listing him as scheduled to receive an award in Switzerland. An extradition request was made and the rest is history.

I'm with you on the analysis. However, the Thermal Pollution theory casts new light on some so-called 'clean/green' power sources such as coal with CO2 sequestration and nuclear, which some political parties / scientists have proposed: for example Nuclear power plants get go-ahead (opposed by the LibDems) and Carbon store 'could free UK coal', respectively. I'm looking forward to Mr Barber's views.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If there's data that suggests otherwise I'd be > happy to consider it! You are right about the impact of renewable energy sources. However, warming caused by CO2 accumulation is not the only theory around. The theory proposed in this paper, for example, claims a better fit to the data: Thermal pollution causes global warming

FatherJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The X Factor Twins, either or both. Not Len, Ted and Dougal, then? What happened to 'turn the other cheek', by the way?

JBARBER Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > to avoid climate catastrophe we need to reduce > CO[2] emissions by 80% by 2050. Living in London > which will mostly be submerged if sea levels do > rise by 11m we all have strong selfish motives > to get our acts together. 1. What do you say to scientists who argue that atmospheric CO2 heats up the planet cumulatively during its relatively long lifetime and that therefore nothing we do now can avert an inevitable catastrophe in the future? 2. How is an 80% reduction to be achieved without venting as much waste heat into the atmosphere from the alternative energy sources as that which the eliminated fossil fuels would have generated in the first place? Or are you suggesting that London should revert to a pre-industrial era city by 2050? 3. An 11m rise in sea level within the lifetime of anyone on this forum would herald an extinction-scale catastrophe (i.e. runaway warming via an as yet unquantified, positive feedback mechanism). Is this the official LibDem position?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... any evidence for your theory of 'mutual equilibrium"? The general theory underlying terminology such as "stable bio-diversity" and "mutual equilibrium/co-evolution? is James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis, which itself underlies more recent work, such as Fritjof Capra's Web of Life, amongst many others. For example, Staley (2002) has proposed: "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics, not Darwinian selection. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions."

All living organisms on Earth share a common set of fundamental gene sequences that have taken 3.5 billion years to evolve into today's extant ecosystem. During that time, food plants and herbivorous animals have co-evolved in mutual equilibrium. Gene insertion is not simply grafting at a smaller level. Grafting does not create new gene sequences. Grafted plants cannot reproduce themselves as new stock/scion combinations. And no attribute of grafting can spread through cross-pollination. As for gene insertion via carrier virus - I can't think of any other activity with more potential for precipitating unintended consequences on a cataclysmic scale. Having said that - I acknowledge that GM is an essential element in feeding today's and tomorrow?s human population, but my preferred long term solution is not more GM - we are now close to the limit of productivity imposed by the amount of sunlight falling onto existing agricultural land (all else being equal) - but rather reducing population levels to the planet's natural carrying capacity, i.e. restoring a natural equilibrium. While I'm at it: the Green Revolution was mainly achieved by breeding dwarf cultivars that could be planted closer together thereby increasing yields by a factor of two, three or even four using the same land area. That was a one off - genetic engineering cannot hope to achieve anything like that increase in yield from here onwards.

------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't the problem with GM foods ... > But with GM companies such as Monsanto they OWN > the rights totally - they can prevent the use of > food derived from their products Just to clarify this point: This particular technique exploits a natural phenomenon known as the F1 Hybrid, which is very common throughout the industry and includes many, if not most, of the non-GM commercially produced cultivars. It has nothing to do with any genetic modifications applied to the parent plants from which F1 Hybrid seeds are regenerated annually. GM companies merely own the parent plants so are the sole source of their seeds. Farmers who attempt to circumvent the process by collecting seeds from F1 Hybrids end up with weak, low yielding F2 plants that do not express the desirable features of their F1 parents.

In the context of my above post; "natural" refers to genetic sequences that have evolved over 3.5 billion years into a stable bio-diversity. While "unnatural" means artificially manufactured genetic sequences whose long-term interaction with natural systems is unknown. We cannot predict whether or not a particular artificial sequence can transform something benign like the common cold into an Ebola-like killer virus. Such are the risks of Genetic Engineering.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Selective breeding is just genetic modification. Selective breeding is a non-invasive process that mimics natural selection. Changes are achieved through natural processes. Genetic Modification (aka G. Engineering) involves manipulation of genetic sequences by unnatural means such as interspecies gene insertion (often via viral vectors) gene deletion or multiplication, mutation via mutagens or radiation, etc. Most of the resulting changes cannot have arisen naturally. The risks from artificial genetic manipulation are very real. The complexity of cell chemistry and our poor understanding of it mean that we cannot always predict the consequences of our actions. At the extreme, the risk is that a rogue gene sequence could destroy a species, an entire ecosystem or all life on the planet.

Thanks to the City we almost became one - and may yet do so.

I've never been able to get into it - just doesn't do anything for me.

Old pros?

People with a million in cash are usually quite smart. They are smart enough not to boast about their wealth to complete strangers on a forum. They are smart enough not to give every estate agent and house seller in the area they intend to move to a heads up as to their maximum budget. Ergo, you are too dumb to be the smart-arse you claim to be.

alphacalifragelistic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ? if London based trading of bonds, foreign > equities and derivatives comes roaring back ? We now know that most of the frenzied trading over the last few years was neither productive nor socially beneficial: it destroyed wealth and bankrupted the western banking system. The only way trading can come ?roaring back? to the City is if no one has learnt anything from the Great Financial Crisis. Are we that dumb? > (The ex pat tax driven hedge fund exodus to Geneva > was talked up two years ago, but I wonder how > significant it proved to be in the end. Gordon Brown?s recent plan for a 50 per cent top rate of income tax has encouraged some fund managers to relocate and many more to consider moving to Switzerland (where rates are 10-15%). See Swiss target Brown?s tax rises

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HAL9000 Wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------- > > The actual math > > Sss. Quoting from Mathematics: Etymology The word "mathematics" comes from the Greek μάθημα (m?thēma), which means learning, study, science, and additionally came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times. Its adjective is μαθηματικός (mathēmatik?s), related to learning, or studious, which likewise further came to mean mathematical. In particular, μαθηματικὴ τέχνη (mathēmatikḗ t?khnē), in Latin ars mathematica, meant the mathematical art. The apparent plural form in English, like the French plural form les math?matiques (and the less commonly used singular derivative la math?matique), goes back to the Latin neuter plural mathematica (Cicero), based on the Greek plural τα μαθηματικά (ta mathēmatik?), used by Aristotle, and meaning roughly "all things mathematical"; although it is plausible that English borrowed only the adjective mathematic(al) and formed the noun mathematics anew, after the pattern of physics and metaphysics, which were inherited from the Greek. In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths, or math in English-speaking North America.

Mockney: I'm with you on this. I don't know why it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It may be that Europeans just can't accept the idea of becoming dependent upon yet another group of semi-stable Muslim countries as their future energy suppliers?

The idea has been around for many years but surprisingly little progress has been made. In principle, it appears to provide a viable source of clean energy. In practice, it would likely become mired in political and economic considerations. The technological obstacles are not trivial, either. Sand/dust storms, I imagine, would be amongst the bigger concerns: I experienced a couple in the Middle East - it's not smooth beach-type sand but sharp, wind-sculpted rock flour that abrades anything it comes into contact with. It strips paint from vehicles and frosts glass in a matter of hours. Where the dust settles, dew transforms it into a sun-baked mud that sticks to surfaces like cement.

Read all about it here: Google Sahara solar energy

LegalEagle-ish Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand how you can say that organic > fertilser is more expensive ... On an industrial scale: "Because of their dilute concentration of nutrients, transport and application costs are typically much greater for organic than inorganic fertilizers." See Fertiliser. I agree with the other points you make, most of which are raised in the cited Crop Rotation article.

In the Star Trek universe, post-replicator starships do not have laundry rooms, silly. They recycle dirty uniforms via the anti-matter reactor and use the energy to replicate clean ones. Every cabin has an ensuite sonic shower and loo. The crew's poo is recycled into whatever else they require, including food. Didn?t they teach you anything at Starfleet Academy, ensign Sparticus?

brum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ...in those heels? Ooh punish me again! Has shoe-fetish diva DM evolved into a full-blown Squish Porn dominatrix? I think we should be told.