bombus

Depends how one defines a plastic. I have a pen made from a plastic developed from cellulose. Its totally biodegradeable. I have plastic bags that are the same and degrade after 6 months...

When you leverage questionable reasoning to draw wild and extravagant claims like this, you undermine your own arguments by revealing your predisposition to judgment. Why even bother to post the rest of your argument? Just issue the fatwah and move on.

Well you make a fair point re my judgement, but I would argue that my claims are not particularly wild or extravagant, and such claims have been mentioned on the BBC and elsewhere by well educated commentators. (Not the bit about the Israeli state wishing to exterminate the Palestinians mind you. That's my own conjecture).

That said, I think the two state solution will never work, because the Palestinians will still end up having lost their homeland. I think the only solution is to have a single secular state where jews and palestinians have equal rights under the law. I fear otherwise it will be a war without end, and could ignite bigger, far worse wars.

Merged post follows:

oh please... you claim a minority of palestinians support Hamas but suddenly the entire nation of Israel wants to exterminate all the Palestinians?

 

I repeat Pangloss's emphasis about extravagant claims...

It matters not what side the majority of Palestinians are on. What matters is whether they are legitimate military targets - which the vast majority are not! Are the victims of 911 legitimate targets because they supported the USA hegemony?

Merged post follows:

Plummeted is not stopped, and I think the question of control is a debatable one. (And ultimately I don't think you know whether they can exert that control any more than I do.)

True, but as good as in this region. Hamas have a pretty loose control over 'militants' compared to the Israeli state's control of its soldiers. Holding Hamas responsible for every rocket is a sure fire way of never having to admit a ceasefire is working. Why, if one wanted to start a conflict you just pay someone to shoot a missile and blame it on Hamas.

The UK Government was wise not to blame every terrorist attack on the IRA once the ceasefire was agreed for just such a reason.

I've seen a dog eat it's own turd. Maybe that behaviour is totally normal for humans too. At last I can stop feeling dirty!

Honestly, if a handful of Palestinians managed to carry out attacks on Israel that were on scale with the 9/11 attacks in the US, including death tolls, I would consider that a less valid reason to invade Gaza than these missile attacks - if the 9/11 style attack was condemned by Hamas and general populous of the Palestinian civilians.

 

The problem I see, is that (unless I see evidence to the contrary) these missile attacks are sanctioned, if not carried out by Hamas which holds popular support of the civilian population.

 

If the Georgian government decided to suddenly launch missiles into Russia and basically declare war - that's their prerogative, but they'd be fooling themselves if they think they are not inviting a world of hurt down on their people, including civilians.

 

No degree of effectiveness or ineffectiveness of an act of war, changes the fact it's an act of war. If you try to use biological weapons to wipe out as many people as you can, but end up only killing a few cattle, does that mean you are only on the hook for minor property damage?

 

Maybe the Palestinians are justified in starting their war - maybe, as I don't have all the details. That being said though, you cannot start a war with a much, much stronger enemy and not expect your own people (including civilians) to suffer. That is just madness.

 

The people I really feel sorry for are those who appear to be a minority of Palestinians that do not like Hamas and do not support Hamas (at least privately) who, because their elected officials believe they should attack Israel even if their whole world burns - have been hijacked by this insanity.

This is not a WAR! Israel have not declared war on Gaza. This is punishment inflicted on all Palestinians in Gaza for the acts of an extremely small minority.

It will only work to make Palestinians even more anti Israel. Maybe that's what Isael wants - it would give them an excuse for their own Final Solution for the Palestinians.

Merged post follows:

eh... maybe AIPAC does, but not the Israeli government.

Same thing really.

Just remember, it is not the Israelis that are responsible for that response. A few soldiers killing a bunch of Palestinians, how is that Israel's problem? Remember, the Palestinians elected Hamas, which makes them about as responsible for their actions as the Israelis are for the actions of their government.

Err... Hamas took control by way of a coup - they were not elected. And anyway, while the ceasefire was working missile attacks from Gaza plummeted. Hamas does not have control of every militant - just like the IRA has no control over the 'Real IRA' or 'Continuity IRA'.

Isreal started this and hope to finish it before Barak Obama gets in. But Israel has him and his administration by the balls anyway. Israel does whatever it likes and breaches any international law it likes and no-one does a thing.

Israel is an out of control rogue state and should be consigned to the pages of history.

I am appalled by the behaviour of Israel, and the lack of understanding of the conflict that seems to be being aired by some here. A few crappy missiles shot by terrorists that kill a handful of israeli civilians does not justify this response that has killed over 300 Palestinian civilians. Terrorists are bastards, but democratic states that are supposed to be liberal and wish to have the respect of other such states should not be even bigger bastards. This is effectively collective punishment which is illegal! But Israel can do as it likes cos no-ones got the moral stamina to try to stop them. Shame on Israel. It will end in tears, maybe for all of us.

Merged post follows:

 

Anyway, of course I don't support a theocracy - the Brits and Americans didn't want them, so I guess having them go there was a good solution. That is old history though.

I'd say a very bad decision - and one that's not really that old!

Too late now though, we let Israel have nukes of their own.

There will never be peace in the region.

a breif history of time is not a scientific paper. it is a book meant to relay the basic concepts of a scientific theory to the public. the maths needed to prove it would make it incomprehensible to most of the population.

 

the website in question requires maths as it is trying to prove a 'theory'

Yes but this theory does not introduce anything new as such, it just offers a different way of thinking about already existing theories.

anyway, he does say this:

"The above concepts are precisely mathematically correct. For

more information contact the author."

OK, good points.

It doesn't seem to contain any maths, make any mathematical predictions, it's not science.

Well, 'a brief history of time' is pretty short on maths! It's the concepts that matter - the maths just backs it up - or not as the case may be.

"believe in physics"

 

We've had a thread on what is time, I seem to recall it addressed all the points on that site... which seems to be pretty void on physics content...

I am no physicist so can you tell me, what laws of physics does this website transgress? The theories appear to answer many of the puzzles standard accepted physics does not.

None of the suggested websites prove much as far as I can see. The elephant in the room is that subduction has to equal plate creation EXACTLY, and there's little evidence of that from what I've been able to find.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean..?

This is what I mean:

http://www.timephysics.com/

This guy has some very interesting ideas. Can anyone pick any holes in them?

I hate to have to ask but I never heard of that one, can you provide a link?

Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_locomotion#Rolling

I think it must have been the caterpillar I read about.

The first change I’d like to see is in the military. Back in the 60’s, Sen. Stuart Symington (D-MO) proposed unifying the military under one Chief of Staff and abolishing the separate commands that cost so much money.

I remember once reading a book of lists. It listed the reliability of armies in various countries ranked 1-20. The British Army was ranked as No.1, and the US Army was ranked No.2. The explanation for the British Army being so reliable was apparently due to the regiment system, which makes a military coup virtually impossible. Having the entire army under one leader is a sure way to encourage military coups!

You see Emanuel as a neo-conservative? Really? The architect of universal health care?

 

Gee.

If that's true - and I don't doubt you - it's very good news. However, from what I understand his foreign policy leanings are very neo-con.

Like Sauron the dark lord, you think you've killed 'em but those damn neo-cons just reappear in another form. I think Obama is a truly good man, but I fear he'll be hobbled if he tries to steer away from the neo-con agenda.

I suppose that is possible. There is a worm that curls up into a wheel and rolls.

Time is the expansion of space. Gravity is the effect of mass slowing time. I think...

Not really. Some people may choose not to work, and there would likely be some time between switching jobs. However, it would be possible to offer everyone who wants employment some minimum level of employment.

Agreed. I should have said Full Employment, which is usually takes that into account.

So the purpose of government is to pay people not to rob us?

Well, it's one of them. 100% employment is possible if society wants it. If it chooses not to have 100% employment it must deal with the consequences one way or another and so paying people not to rob us is probably preferrable to the other options.

 

What's wrong with Socialism? In this topic several opinions have been given.

 

1) I produces dependence, not independence

2) It produces mistrust and animosity between members of society.

3) Perhaps it fosters depression in individuals as well.

The last two are more applicable to capitalism.

Everyone agrees this is an extremely hypothetical thread, right? Not that I'm objecting, but anybody who thinks we're headed towards socialism under an Obama administration, either in stark terror or in gleeful anticipation, is just deluding themselves, IMO.

Totally agree with that.

However, total Socialism doesn't work in my opinion, as people en mass are greedy and selfish and the idea of 'working for the good of society' doesn't sustain most people for very long.

A degree of socialism however, such as has existed in many democratic western European states, can work very well.

I think the 'arteries' of society should be run by Government for the people (not for profit) - e.g. energy production and distribution, road and rail systems, healthcare, education, security forces (and maybe the banking system!).

The rest is better catered for by market forces.

I have a friend who lives in France, and he says that under their system you are paying for somebody to be a couch potato.

well, it's probably cheaper than dealing with the crime that would exist without 'welfare'.

Ssshurely a system of annual tax rebates would work so that if you just happen to earn three times as much as usual in one week of the year, you would pay less tax on that one week than someone who earns that amount all the time?????

to npts2020: I'm not necessarily talking about immigrants - I'm talking about low paid jobs, it's just that these are very often filled by immigrants because the 'locals' refuse to work for such low wages.

Why would you want to 'import' doctors, lawyers, skilled workers etc if you have a population of your own that could fill any vacancies. As a short term fix it may be desirable (we have a shortage of Dentists in the UK for example), but in the longer term a state should be training its own population if there is a shortage.

Also, if you a rich you can get into most developed countries just fine!

One thought that strikes me is that the CFLs take so long to warm up properly that you would have parked the car and gone inside before the garage lights came on.

Also, if I can't buy incandescent lamps I will have to replace the timer switches I use on some of my lights (they can't cope with CFL)- who pays for that?

You'll soon be able to buy LED light bulbs - which are instant and produce light but very little heat (so are very efficient).

Sure, that's why I'm learning Spanish -- so I can tell the lady how to cut my hair. But how does increasing what is already an extremely large number of immigrants save the economy? Is there a shortage of hairdressers and janitors where you live?

 

Also, I've never quite understood why it's actually desirable for these jobs to generate less income. If there weren't anybody willing to do those jobs for that pay, wouldn't that actually result in a larger amount of money being spent on those jobs? Why is it a bad thing if it costs me $100/month to get lawn care instead of $50/month?

Hit the nail on the head there! It's counter productive in the end to fill low wage jobs with ever more desperate people. It keeps wages low for the benefit of the rich(er) but ulitimately does not help the economy as poor people pay less tax, need more state help, are more likely to need to turn to crime, and all the other issues associated with poor neighbourhoods.

Norway is a country where just about everyone gets a pretty good wage. Prices are generally higher (£7.50 for a beer!) but they have a very well educated, law abiding and healthy population.