mistermack

Sounds ok, but it actually has embedded in it the element of success. If you don't buy into the message, then it was attempted indoctrination, not indoctrination. Sounds fair enough. So I wasn't indoctrinated as a child? BUT, I suppose I did buy into it at the time, and rejected it later. So I WAS indoctrinated. And later became UN-indoctrinated ! I blame my brother.

I don't feel indoctrinated. But looking back, I know that I was. If you asked a 100 North Koreans if they felt indoctrinated, a big majority would probably say no. Or 100 Hitler Youth, or 100 Jehova's Witnesses. In any sphere, you would struggle to find people who feel indoctrinated. Most of the 6.6 billion religious people on the planet would claim that they chose their religion freely, and choose to remain in it freely. But the figures disprove it. The vast overwhelming majority stick with the doctrine they were taught.

That really just indicates your feeling of what the word should mean, and I know the feeling. Nobody likes being grouped alongside the Hitler Youth, or North Koreans, or Jehova's Witnesses. But my argument is that the word is so clear IN-DOCTRINE-ATION, that it's the result that's referred to, not the method. If your subjects learn the doctrine, and believe in it, then you have indoctrinated them. It doesn't really matter how gently or kindly you went about it, or how much fun you made it, the result is what matters. On the planet today, there are about 6.6 billion regligous, and 1.1 non religious. So the indoctrination, whether hard or soft, is still working very well. If I met someone who escaped North Korea, and gone through the full "dear leader" treament but rejected it, I would say that they were indoctrinated, but not successfully. And I would say the same about myself.

So it should be kept for religious and quasi religious teaching then. Studying religions in a critical academic manner wouldn't qualify as indoctrination, but being made to study Islam as a young muslim would. The critical difference being the the intention to instil or strengthen a belief in the doctrine.

I didn't say that it didn't. Of course I agree that there are degrees. That's completely obvious. What that means is that there are degrees of loss of freedom in forming your beliefs. Which is bourne out by the many cases like mine, where people who were thoroughly indoctrinated as kids, still kick the religion. And others, who were less thoroughly worked on, still stuck to the religion. Indoctrination is not just one thing, it covers a huge spread of behaviour and success. Having said that, it works. The figures prove it works. Or can you seriously claim that all these billions of people follow the religion they were brought up with, just by chance ??? But if you are taught a religious doctrine, what else CAN it mean? Maybe you feel that the word should be kept for others, who were more intensively indoctrinated, like the Hitler Youth or North Koreans. I would say that you were indoctrinated, but mildly, by the sound of it. But kid's don't even know that they ARE being indoctrinated. The religions put on a show, and there's a lot of dressing up, and the moral message can sound enticing. It's not all hammered into people. You can be softly indoctrinated in a pleasant way.

If that's all you ever see, then yes, to a teeny tiny degree. Or do you think that indoctrination is a binary yes/no state? Or that there is a start threshold? I'm indoctrinated in the belief that things go better with Coke. But not to the state where I would drink that crap.

I can't think of any exceptions right now. What do you think? I'm open to suggestions.

Are you truly free to question, when you can only give one answer? When that answer is implanted in your brain by endless indoctrination as a child? You can form the question in words, rhetorically, but if you have no intention whatsoever of considering any answer except one, then you are not really questioning.

It can only be a partial vacuum. But that's what you produce in your mouth when you suck up a drink through a straw. I know what you're saying, but actually, suction just means creating a partial vacuum in normal parlance. We say that a vacuum cleaner sucks air, even though it's really the weight of the atmosphere pushing air into the hose because the fan causes a pressure difference. So I would say that there is such a thing as suction, but the mechanism isn't what a lot of people imagine. It's just word preference really.

I'm really speculating here, but I wouldn't find it so surprising that a gene that is acting in one location should have an affect in another. Imagine a gene that causes major changes in the pituatry gland. The effects could show up in all sorts of locations and processes, like growth, blood pressure, sex organs etc. In a plant, it might affect production of anti-fungal or anti-viral substances, and that could lead to apparently unrelated changes in the roots. I'm not suggesting that in particular, just speculating on an example of the type of things that could be involved.

Well, neither tolerate nor respect is a great word. I have no rights not to tolerate someone's beliefs, unless thay try impose them aggressively or with undue force on me or people I care about. Very often, I feel obliged to show respect that I don't really feel, like at funerals and baptisms and weddings. I'm really respecting the people's wishes for a dignified ceremony, rather than their beliefs. So I turn up, and stand and kneel in time, and keep my opinions to myself, rather than cause offence or miss the occasion. I would dislike being included as a believer, without my consent though. As in "in god we trust" etc. Or my entire childhood. And having a right to their beliefs doesn't extend to a right to indoctrinate in my book. Although parents do have that legal right, and it's widely accepted socially as a parent's right, I personally hate it and thoroughly disrespect it. Just as I do disrespect cutting off body parts of babies for religious reasons. I tolerate it, of course I do, I can't change the world, and don't want to upset people for the sake of a losing battle. I restrict my intolerance to voting, and saying what I think if the subject comes up for debate.

No, that's where I think you're wrong. We are free in theory to question religious indoctrination, but not in practice. Because indoctrination affects the brain to such an extent, that it takes away your true ability to question. You can pose the question, but the answer you will come up with is pre-programmed. Obviously not 100% successfully, but for a high percentage of cases.

I don't have any problem with religious people doing science, or scientific people doing religion. So long as they keep the two in their seperate mental compartments. We're all human, and a lot of people need, or like to have, a mental crutch when it comes to contemplating the reality of death. What I don't like is when people expect me to respect their beliefs. I respect the people and their right to believe whatever they want. But not the belief itself. And I thoroughly hate the way that they indoctrinate their children in the same garbage. I view it as abuse. Abuse of a privileged position of authority. Some say that when the child grows up, they are free to believe whatever they like. But in truth, once you recieve religious indoctrination as a child, you are never free of it, not even the ones who reject it. Many scientists are in that position. They were indoctrinated as kids, and can't or don't want to kick it, and who can blame them for that? So yes, of course you can be a scientist and a believer. So long as you keep them seperate, and don't actually believe that you have found the god particle.

No, I hadn't seen that, thanks. However, it's very slight, and doesn't necessarily mean a drop of intelligence. From what I've read, Neanderthals had a slightly bigger brain than our species. But it was a bit different in conformation, being longer with more at the back, and no more in the frontal lobes, where we do our conscious thinking. The slight reduction might be due to an ongoing process of increased neoteny. It's long been fairly well accepted that our species has a missing stage in development, that happens in other apes, in that we never quite become fully adult in the true ape sense. We are extended juveniles, we become sexually mature without moving to the "silverback" stage. It could be that that is what allows us to keep learning for longer. Our brains stay receptive longer. So we get an intelligence gain without paying the price of a bigger head. You will find that opinion in lots of textbooks, but I wouldn't say that it's cast iron theory as yet. When it comes to the extra intelligence of humans, it’s not just size that counts, but the layout of the brain. In particular, the size of the frontal lobes, and also, the degree of folding of the surface of the brain. One favourite comparison is of two people whose brains were examined posthumously, who could be said to be similar in achievement, Ivan Turgenev (1818–83), the weight of who’s brain reached an incredible 2021 g, and Anatole France, who’s brain was measured at about half that. They were both talented writers, but it was the one with the 1,000g brain that won the Nobel Prize.

The word is compartmentalism. That's what religious scientists do. They keep one brain compartment for science, and in that compartment they question everything and demand evidence. In another compartment, they keep religion, in which they take the most unlikely things on faith, and believe what they are told, over and over from childhood. Climate science comes somewhere in the middle. There doesn't seem to be much questioning or demanding of evidence. But plenty of warnings of the coming Apocalypse.

Yeh but that's not what you said. I find those posts rather vague, you throw in the word diameter but don't get to the point of why it is a problem. And then complain that I didn't respond. It's because you weren't specific about what the problem was that I didn't respond to it. In any case, I've seen some very big examples of vertical axis turbines, so I don't think the diameter is as restricting as you claim. They are being deployed here and there, but they need quite a bit of engineering to get around the inherent problems. But that's not to say it can't be done. But this example, of 25 tightly packed in a wall, looks to be a non starter, for the reasons's I've posted earlier. That's just my opinion, and I've posted my reasons, for others to disagree with as they wish.

Can be, but it then wouldn't adjust to different wind direction. And in any case, the deflection would interfere with the flow elsewhere. And you still have the problem of air being forced into the path of the oncoming flow by the returning vane. There are design possibilities to get around some of these problems that are being explored. Quote wiki : "Dulas, Anglesey received permission in March 2014 to install a prototype VAWT on the breakwater at Port Talbot waterside. The turbine is a new design, supplied by Wales-based C-FEC (Swansea),[24] and will be operated for a two-year trial.[25] This VAWT incorporates a wind shield which blocks the wind from the advancing blades, and thus requires a wind-direction sensor and a positioning mechanism, as opposed to the "egg-beater" types of VAWTs discussed above.[24]" No you didn't.

Well you could, but it would be a complicated system, to move the shield around as the wind direction changes. And it wouldn't be suitable for this wall, which would only work at it's best with a wind at 90 degrees to it. Fixed shielding would detract as the wind veered around. Well you mentioned diameter but didn't make any specific point about it. I'm assuming that you mean that the swept area increases with the square of the radius, making size increases more attractive on the traditional HAWT design? That's a fact, but size increases come with greater stresses, putting bigger demands on materials. Of course, bigger size takes you further away from the ground, giving access to stronger and more reliable wind, so that's another factor in favour of diameter increase. The actual vanes mechanism on this wall are not gone into in detail, but look to be the basic drag type two scoop Savonius style design, which is one of the least efficient early types of turbine. Another reason that manufacturers wouldn't be impressed.

IQ is a measure of the ability to do IQ tests. The link to actual intelligence is far weaker. While academic abilities rise with the generations, it doesn't mean that the difference is genetic. It might be mostly environmental. However, just as average heights of humans have been rising, there may be a one-off rise in actual real intelligence levels, due to diet improvements, but like height, it's unlikely to be more than a one or two generation thing, if it's due to an improved diet. If you could compare a group of humans from 50,000 years ago to a modern day group, it's very unlikely that there would be a discernable difference in average intelligence, if they grew up in the same environment.

The Haast's Eagle could live quite well on sheep, even if you didn't bring back the Moa. You would have to protect it, and give compensation for stock losses. (and the occasional child). The Aurox could be kept like the Bison is now, as a novelty delicacy food. The Irish Elk would be good to see as well. Hunters would pay a lot of money for a trophy head with antlers 12 feet wide. Could be a money spinner.

Of course not, but that applies to almost any extinct species that you might bring back. Unless you got rid of the 7.5 billion humans, they could only exist in protected environments like reserves. I'd still like to see them though. And the Aurox. I'd like to see what a McDonald burger originally looked like in the wild.

I see no linked support for any of that. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Where are all the vertical axis turbines? I see plenty of the popular horizontal units, including investments in the hundreds of millions. One obvious problem with vawts is that while one side is moving with the wind, the other side is working against it. You can mitigate that, with streamlining the shape, but it never goes away, and of course, it's causing turbulence the whole time.

Actually no, that's wrong. It was the first Maoris that hunted the Moas to extinction, that brought about the end of the Eagle. Before that, there was the usual predator/prey balance.

What has that got to do with wind turbines? In any case, the vertical axis design is inherently enefficient in extracting energy, however you pack them in. Wikipedia says this : However, these designs produce much less energy averaged over time, which is a major drawback.[26][33] Vertical turbine designs have much lower efficiency than standard horizontal designs.[34] The key disadvantages include the relatively low rotational speed with the consequential higher torque and hence higher cost of the drive train, the inherently lower power coefficient, the 360-degree rotation of the aerofoil within the wind flow during each cycle and hence the highly dynamic loading on the blade, the pulsating torque generated by some rotor designs on the drive train, and the difficulty of modelling the wind flow accurately and hence the challenges of analysing and designing the rotor prior to fabricating a prototype.[35]

I would bring back that giant eagle of New Zealand, the Haast's eagle, that was twice the size of a Golden Eagle, and big enough to prey on the Moa which I would also bring back. The Moa was nearly twice the size of an Ostrich, which itself would be worth seeing, but to see the Haast's Eagle in action would be really spectacular.