Royston

It was a hasty statement, based on a general feeling I had from previous discussions on religion and it's influence. However, I think it's quite hard to draw a line to let some religious discussion (e.g your examples above) acceptable, and not others, so I personally think it's better to not discuss religion at all, especially when individuals are grounded in a given belief, and they're not likely to budge from their view. I don't see anything wrong with that, but it's not productive discussion if there's a predetermined sense of bias to the subject, whichever belief they may hold. I personally think science is interesting enough, without the need for religious discussion. As strong as the influence religion may have on the world, I don't think a science forum, where learning, debating and understanding scientific subjects, is the right place to discuss religion...just my opinion.

I still think bringing back religious discussion into a science forum, when it clearly hasn't worked before (surely it's good to learn from mistakes) is a terrible idea. I'm a bit disappointed the recent discussions on religion in the psychiatry section and GD weren't locked immediately It seems the small group of individuals who do want to discuss the topic, are all familiar with each others stance on the subject anyway, so why the crap do we need to go back over the same old discussions, again. Pleeeease, don't let this happen, SFN is fine without it.

As I'm sure you already know, a consequence of classical physics is that it assumes continuous space, so for any theory (I presume you mean a theory of gravity) to agree with QFT, the geometry of space needs to be discrete, that is volume, area et.c. Continuous space is not really an observation flaw, which theCPE seems to be saying, (though I may have misread) but a mathematical one...infinitely divisible. For instance Maxwells equations rely on a continuous field, that is, it's not composed of quanta. This is fine with low frequency EM waves, but becomes a problem with higher frequencies. With regards to relativity, as gravity is a description of the geometry of space, at the Planck scale the geometry needs to be expressed in discrete units, otherwise you run into infinities, or indefinites. So in short, any theory that assumes continuous space, simply won't agree with QM...so isn't in anybodies best interest to pursue. I think Bascule probably wanted an expert to answer, and somebody correct me if I missed anything with regards to the above.

It's a bit hard not to be swayed by the personality of the person, as well as the name / avatar...but going solely by name / avatar, I picture Severian as a young Christopher Lee, quite stern, not to be trifled with. Phi for All, doesn't conjure up bald and fat. More, sunken eyes, pronounced forehead, a few teeth missing, excessive body and facial hair, especially the cheeks (as though his eyebrows have traveled South), sways back and forth a lot, and salivates quite heavily.

If this is homework...I'll give you clue, the name Gypsum is derived from a Greek word meaning... Now google it. It's first use was 6000 BC, so it's highly unlikely anybody knows who discovered it...unless you're asking who founded the recycling firm Gypsum.

All I know, is the definite integral of a chicken, is a chicken nugget.

You're overlooking that technology uncovers questions that can't be described or answered, QM is still AFAIK as baffling today as when it was first discovered. Some hypotheses have attempted a radical reworking of reality to accomodate. Before a question is experimentally testable, it remains in the realms of philosophy...the latter is the attempt at trying to answer the unanswerable. That doesn't follow... Q:Why do planets move around in the sky? A:Because of gravity There's no why question following that, except...why does the universe operate like that, which is a non-scientific question. How does the universe operate like that, is. A GUT will only explain how gravity behaves at the planck scale, not why it behaves as it does.

I know full well how a fickle society works, hence my distain at such a decision. The West is geared towards the progress of self indulgence, and when self indulgence presents health risks, well, there are plenty of poor people, lets take their organs...great ! I know you don't agree with the idea, but it's a pretty twisted proposal nevertheless. Or how about, little cute girl gets overlooked and dies due to overcrowded hospital. Person A: Hmm, I might stab myself in the throat Person B: Don't stab yourself in the throat, it presents an incredibly high risk to your health. Person A: Well, that's great advice, and you're a professional in the field, but I'm going to do it anyway. Person A stabs himself in the throat...Murder ! Couldn't you accuse patients who could control their condition, and hampering the health service of priority care to patients who can't control their condition of murder...why not? Exactly, it's completely a matter of priority, and it's one Tory policy I agree with, although I'm personally Liberal. What's worse is there are future cuts on the EU health budget, but no sign of obesity declining...the complete opposite in fact. So what are the options...we can't ban fat, that's ridiculous. We can't control discipline, that's impossible. We can deny patients treatment through prioritizing, when they've been given adequate warning to control their condition. Personally I think patients should be warned that they won't receive treatment unless there is evidence they have tried to alleviate their symptoms through, cutting back, exercise et.c. I'm not entirely sure how easy it is to spot the evidence, but I'm convinced the option highlighted from the OP is short term, and will not prevent the rise in obesity from the source...that is, forcing people to take control and reduce the rise in obese related illness. The same goes for smoking and alcohol related illness.

I don't feel they should get a replacement organ, if they've been told to quit. Paranoia is arguing that somebody should have the right to choose where that organ should go, alcoholic or not, I don't agree. The person who has made a choice not to adopt a lifestyle that has potential risks, should get preference. I feel the person who has not taken measures to change their lifestyle, despite being told, has abused their right to treatment. Well, yes, that's also an issue, but the people receiving organ transplants should be lessened by denying them treatment, if they've decided not to adopt the doctors advice. I'm really thinking the source of the problem should be alleviated, rather than, as I said before, a quick fix. As my link illustrates, the magnitude and burden of obesity is what should be tackled, not relying on the poor to give transplants.

I agree, but I'm equally perplexed that such an option has been considered, due to, what appears to me, people who have been warned time and time again the risks that come with obesity, and yet still carry on regardless. If somebody wants to lead that lifestyle, then fine, but they should be the last on the list of who is treated, if treated at all...and if they've made the choice to ignore a doctors advice, I don't feel they should get any preferential treatment, just my opinion. With all due respect, if you offered me a kidney due to a habit which I could of stopped, I'd call you a freakin' idiot, and ask you to donate it to someone who had heeded the numerous warnings to the risks of smoking. I wouldn't think twice about it. I'm not saying that choice should be taken away, but if you've been told 'Paranoia, unfortunately you need to knock the booze and the cigarettes on the head, otherwise you'll need an organ transplant', I would consider you incredibly selfish for not cutting down, and not allowing that organ to go to somebody who didn't have that choice...given that you could make that decision. Quite simply because they've had no choice in the matter, and I appear to be repeating myself...again. I'm not casting judgement, if you choose to have a short, but highly enjoyable life so be it, but it should not be at the cost of others, who havn't chosen a short life. Just for the record.... http://www.iotf.org/media/euobesity.pdf Obesity is rising at an alarming rate throughout Europe. It forms a pan- European epidemic that presents a major barrier to the prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases. At least 135 million EU citizens are affected and perhaps another 70 million in those countries seeking to join. In many countries now significantly more than half the adult population is overweight and up to 30% of adults are clinically obese. The prevalence among children is rising significantly with as many as one in four affected in some regions. Childhood obesity is an acute health crisis and the rapidly emerging feature of type 2 diabetes among obese children should be sounding alarm bells for the immediate and well as long-term health of 80 million youngsters in the EU. While obesity is itself an avoidable chronic disease, it is a substantial risk factor for others. The most significant health consequences include hypertension, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, gallbladder disease, certain types of cancer and psychosocial problems. It also conveys increased risks of dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance, breathlessness, sleep apnoea, asthma, osteo-arthritis, hyperuricaemia and gout, reproductive hormone abnormalities, polycystic ovarian syndrome, impaired fertility, and lower back pain. The costs of obesity have been estimated at up to 8% of overall health budgets and represent an enormous burden both in individual illness, disability and early mortality as well as in terms of the costs to employers, tax payers and society. A growing proportion of adults in both the European Union and accession countries are in need of more effective therapeutic management to control their obesity and to reduce their risks for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer. Indeed an estimated 78,000 new cancer cases in the EU each year have been attributed to overweight, reflecting the even greater challenge to introduce population-wide approaches to weight management as - 4 - existing health and medical provisions do not have the capacity to cope. New data show clearly how to prevent type 2 diabetes through weight management strategies.

That's awesome, my younger self would of been profoundly envious. For me, that's when science happened Phi, that's a great story, I did wonder if you had thespian roots.

Personally, and whether you believe me or not is irrelevant...if I contracted lung cancer because of my habit, no I don't deserve treatment. I'm perfectly aware of the risks, there's no excuse. I realize that, and perhaps that's something the person should be considering if a lifestyle change would of prevented that. If people are denied treatment due to obesity, or illnesses related to smoking or heavy drinking, perhaps they'll think twice about they're habits. If they want to take that risk, then they should realize it's not just affecting them, but their loved ones. I'm just a little sick of the millions of people not making an effort, and expecting treatment. If you're aware of the possible consequences, then you've made a choice to take that risk, nobody should be denied living whatever lifestyle they choose, but they shouldn't expect organ transplants et.c when there are people who just havn't had that choice. There are people in the UK claiming incapacity benefit for being overweight, it's sickening. Medical research / funding / treatment should all be geared towards conditions that are out of peoples control, not quick fixes for people that can control their condition. Thanks, I appreciate it. People that have been given a warning that they must stop eating crap / smoking / drinking should also remember the human element, if they can't be bothered to make that change...i.e like you said, their friends and family.

I searched to see if this question has already been asked, so delete if necessary. Just interested what people aspired to when they were younger, and if possible why i.e did you want to be a vet, policeman, fireman when you grew up (hopelessly stereotypical examples, I know.) Also, is anyone actually fulfilling what they aspired to as a child. Is there anyone who wanted to be a professional scientist when they grew up, whichever field that may be. Up until my early teens, I really wanted to break into the movie special effects world, specifically creating monsters, robotics and gore, that type of thing. I had a hobby of coming up with designs, and modelling creatures out of clay, I'd then apply latex which would produce a skin effect, which I'd peel off and hence have a puppet. To which I'd add fur, eyes, and I would look for anything to use for the mechanisms for the mouth et.c I also had fun making myself and friends look like they'd been in a nasty accident, and scaring the crap out of people, given the opportunity.

I was referring to Type II, sorry for not making that clear. Also before anybody accuses me of being a heartless git, what I did make clear was that if 'they didn't make a concerted effort to change their lifestyle' and not making an effort clearly lead to further problems, then personally I don't think they deserve the charity of somebody who has willingly given an organ...whether that person received $ 60,000 or not. Also, such a plan could encourage people not to make an effort. Like I said, I may be way off, and I appreciate that some of my comments may of come across as harsh. But, AFAIK the rise in obesity is directly linked to the rise in Type II diabetes, and people do have the choice to change their lifestyle, where as many conditions people don't have any choice, why should resources and doctors time be wasted on people that do have a choice ?

I said 'I think you're under the impression', which means I've given you the opportunity to tell me otherwise...I never said 'Luminal is clearly under the impression...' Sorry if I came across as putting words in your mouth, that wasn't my intention. It's too early to tell the affects this will have on our adaption, modern medicine has been around for a fraction of the time relative to evolution time scales. Here's an article on the evolution of our brain which you may find interesting...may come back to this, just about to leave work... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/science/08cnd-brain.html

Exactly, I think Luminal is under the impression that humans, or more specifically intelligence is somehow what evolution is converging to. Which, not only being an anthropic view (which isn't scientific), also shows a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.

Firstly apologies to Pangloss is this is going slightly off topic. I'm not sure I agree, I know perfectly well that smoking and my weekend / midweek drinking is detrimental to my health. Why should I get treatment when that time could be used on somebody who has had no choice in their condition. I'm not sure if it's possible, but if I could get figures on the amount of man hours, resources and money that's gone into treating smokers, the obese and heavy drinkers, and imagine if that was put into treating / researching cancer, progressive multiple sclerosis, coronary heart disease et.c et.c If you choose a certain lifestyle, then you should deal with the possible consequences of that lifestyle, you shouldn't be a hindrance to people who have had no choice in their condition. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember the NHS proposing that treatment for smokers is not preferential i.e they're stuck on the bottom of the list for treatment, which I personally agree with. Quite right

Well like I said, I might be way off, there needs to be more info on the primary cause. I don't understand what individuality has to do with it, I'm stupid enough to smoke, and drink quite heavily...if my liver packs up, it's my own stupid fault, I deserve to kick the bucket. Education probably wasn't the best example, but money into research rather than into organ donations seems appropriate. I've never understood the money into a quick fix, as opposed to a long term solution approach, especially where this is concerned...giving up an organ is certainly not to be taken likely. As for discipline, and if that really is the reason for a rise in diabetes in the west, then my sentiments are tough sh*t. But again, I might be barking up the wrong tree.

Hmm, is the rise in diabetes in the U.S due to obesity, we have the same problem in the UK. I realize it's a genetic disorder, but it's also genetic to become obese, not to be obese. I think there should be restrictions on who receives a transplant if the patient doesn't take steps to make a concerted effort to change their diet, exercise regime. If that's way off, someone say...but I don't believe somebody has the right to an organ transplant if they have the opportunity to reduce organ damage by changing their lifestyle. Obviously if there's nothing the patient can do, then that's a different story. I personally think it's a waste of money that could go into diabetes research and educating people on preventing the onset of diabetes...i.e put money into the cause of the problem, not rely on organ donations. It could be quite an attractive offer for somebody who needs $ 60,000, and perhaps more information on the primary cause of the rise in diabetes is needed here, before people start giving up their kidneys for cash.

Survival, being the obvious example, and clearly empathy would come into that (as Bascule mentioned.) This 'self interest' usually only extends as far as humans as a species, rather than the system that we're an integral part of. Which could be in part that we ascribe an importance to our species for numerous reasons, but also that we have arguably the greatest sense of suffering. This obviously causes problems, and why so much energy has gone into so-called progress of increasing an individual’s well-being i.e materialistic increase. We're apparently important, we deserve the best quality of life. Even acts that might not seem self interested, e.g preservation of certain eco-systems, are still clearly in the interests of our own survival, because we depend so heavily on them. Anyone who applies for a job, where they feel they're giving something back, or helping the under-privileged, is really only doing it for their own sense of self-worth or empathy, and empathy being a pre-requisite (amongst others) to our own survival. So, I believe, that my morals stem from an utter self interest from a survival POV.

I'm now considering dedicating the rest of my life on creating such a beverage.

A beer that's beneficial for your liver. A biological weapon that targets individuals with a highly developed 'asbotic lobe', this is the part of the brain responsible for chav like behaviour. A home cloning kit, so I could send my clone to work, while I do whatever I please. A 'long term solution machine', just type in the problem e.g conservation of wildlife habitat or sustainable energy and it presents a long term solution. A biological weapon that targets anybody who disagrees with the 'long term solution machine' (see above) this will alleviate human population problems to a certain degree. A biological weapon that targets anybody who disagrees with me.

Alas, they have returned...on the plus side, there's no garish Easy Pizza ad.

Unless somebody else has already pointed it out, Jenkem is so obviously an urban myth...or possibly a joke started by a bored journalist. From the snopes article... Jenkem “huffers” bury their entire face in the ghastly mess, gasping it all in. If that's not satire, then I'm Levy Mwanawasa.

So the contraption has digressed to a mere 'Free Publicity Machine.'