CaptainPanic

Greg, I would like to talk for 1 post about the "per capita" alone - not about the immigration. We'll get back to that. Greg, according to you, is the "per capita" value always misleading, also when it concerns for example the economic state of a country or region, the birth rates, the consumer behavior, or health related things? Would you perhaps even go as far as saying that statistics is a misleading branch of maths? Or is it just this particular case / thread where it is misleading?

You ask, we deliver. Let's just take your previous post in this thread. I never said anything about racism (I never even used the word 'racist' or 'racism' in the discussions). You put words into my mouth. A normal straw man fallacy is just a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. You put a complete fresh set of words into my mouth, and then attack that. We discuss forum rules, not law. I referred to forum rules 1c and 4. You twist that into another point, and then fight that. That's a fallacy. Appeal to authority. Fallacy. I know this is the core of your argument which we're bickering over on the other thread. We shouldn't discuss it here (it's not relevant to the opening post). In the meantime you are putting words into my mouth (I never even used the word "white" in the other thread). You have the guts to dismiss all numbers which are expressed "per capita" as cherrypicking. It's not like we don't provide data... you just dismiss perfectly good data. We find ourselves in a discussion to somehow prove that an "average" is a good way to compare two populations. People have even gone into explaining why a "per capita" is good enough (it's amazing actually that people on a science forum have lowered themselves to such a petty level just because you dismiss data that is used by pretty much everyone else, which is based on sound mathematics). Maybe it's not a fallacy, but it sure makes discussions impossible. So, does that answer the question?

A very good point... although, as you said, it doesn't answer the question. I'll use that as a "Plan B".

Next time, even if we "know what you're talking about", please take the time to spell it out anyway... We take time to answer your question. It is only polite to take time to ask a good question, and give enough information. Thanks. I could pretend that I don't know what you're talking about, because you do not even tell us what the reactions are, not what the feedstock is... But, I can at least take a guess: Are we talking about: (1) Methane Steam Reforming, (2) Water-Gas Shift, and then (3) the formation of methanol from syngas? Please confirm before anyone spends a lot of time writing something that is not relevant.

I think it would be useful if we get some clarity about the purpose of our Politics forum. Should our forum be like the real-life politics, including all the dirty tricks that politicians and media use (including logical fallacies, misinformation, twisting of facts, and prejudices against certain groups)? Or should we approach things from a scientific point of view, which means that points have to be backed up. Reading our politics forum, I get the feeling that mods ignore our own forum rules in order to allow the discussion to be more like in the media. I read many posts here on the politics forum that, in my opinion, seem to break forum rules 1c (prejudices against groups) and 4 (logical fallacies). Often these posts just ignore plain common sense (like statistical averages), or back up a point with irrelevant facts, which I think breaks forum rule 4... And one member even admitted being xenophobic, which pretty much means the same as having a prejudice against a group. It can hardly get more obvious than that. Despite that, there are no consequences. So, do our forum rules apply to the politics forum, or not? I feel like I am not fighting a fair fight. I spend time to back up my posts, or to refute someone's claims... but if my opponent does not have to properly back up any claims, and can just ignore my point, then I can only lose, or lower myself to the same level. I just want to know whether I am allowed by forum staff to descend to the same level as some others... or whether they break the rules.

That's why you're such a good populist. Rather than say someone else has made a good point, you find a way to twist yourself out of it. Rather than say that statistics show no good correlation, you say that we misunderstood your point. Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand sarcasm so well. I am sure swansont meant that originally the Western people were the immigrants and they caused the degradation of the original Australian society. If you want to be a good populist, you cannot allow your opponents to mock you. You have to find these sarcastic remarks, and you have to reply to them by completely ignoring them and instead making an unrelated joke which proves you're right (again). And at the end of each post, like Cato the Elder, regardless of the topic, you post your motto. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

It's an average value across any of those nations. You take ALL the immigration into a particular country, divide by the total number of people, and multiply by 1000. Then compare. You do know what an average value is, don't you? I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, in real life we also have politicians who simply blame foreigners for all that's wrong. As much as I hate the continuous logical fallacies, the twisting of facts and the refusal to accept the obvious, this is modern politics - or, rather, populism. It breaks forum rules 1c and 4, but I guess only on the politics forum that actually makes it more realistic. Greg is an excellent populist, and he would probably gain votes by simply blaming everything that's wrong on immigrants... regardless whether it's true or not. He would gain even more votes because he will never admit he's wrong about anything. He won't accept statistical data regarding countries, saying that statistical averages are fabricated. And such things work in politics. You can indeed get votes by denying statistics.

I don't understand you. When melting is by definition a reversible process, how can it be independent on it? I just don't understand your line of thinking. p.s. I noticed that you speak Dutch, you can PM me if you think you can explain it better in Dutch (I live in the Netherlands). We've come to a point now where we just repeat previous posts... this needs to end soon.

Since it seems a majority of the members in this thread have accepted that a comparison of immigrants per 1000 people would be an acceptable tool to evaluate the issue, let me post this picture: It shows that: - immigration per capita is much larger in Australia than in the US or UK. - immigration was much larger in Australia in the 80s and early 90s than now. Greg Boyles, I fear that your whole point makes little to no sense. And the only thing left is to convince you (somehow) that a comparison per 1000 people is fair. No clue how we're gonna do that. Maybe we should compare economies (which are also always compared per person or per 1000 people)? Luxembourg is located #70 on the list of countries by GDP (gross domestic product), while India is #10. Are people in India richer than in Luxembourg? No. And we can see that clearly on the list of GDP per capita (per person): India is now place #129, while luxembourg is #2.

A word of warning is always good. Obviously, it's even better to read the Package insert / Prescribing information / Patient information leaflet, which will tell you what possible side effects and interferences can be.

In fact, you say it in the very next sentence: When melting is by definition a reversible process, how can it be independent on it?

Mandatory XKCD reference. Seems (remotely) relevant.

Hal, Please read this wikipedia text which is the ultimate destruction of your point: Note that it clearly says that the amount of energy needed going both ways (adding energy or removing it) is the same. Also note that this piece of text is the 1st paragraph of the particular wiki-article (the part of the article where they give definitions). And the fact that the energy is the same going both ways is what we call "reversibility". So, it's not just me saying melting / freezing is always reversible. You're up against Wikipedia too. So, the status: People and things say that melting freezing is reversible: Wikipedia, all experts on this forum, the entire scientific world. People who still disagree: Hal. Join us, it's much nicer to be right.

You chose a really tough challenge. Although I must admit that I am no expert in these things (you might want to try a dedicated Remote Control forum), I want to make some remarks: 1. Making something that can fly, and can go under water is really difficult. In order to make it sink (go under water) it must be heavy enough, but in order to fly, it must be light enough. These things seem to contradict, but they don't necessarily. If you make a very open structure, then at least water can get everywhere making it easier to sink, and if you get out of the water, the water can escape out a lot easier too. 2. Getting out of the water sounds like a really tough challenge though... you either have to change the buoyancy of your vehicle by a lot, to make it float rather than sink, or you have to use brute force to lift it out of the water... 3. Regarding the controls: for your 1st version, I would take a (cheap) remote controlled toy, like a helicopter, and "extract" the controls from that. In fact, I would take a helicopter for 30 euro, and see if I can make it waterproof. (Since your project is so complicated, I think that the 30 euro are a negligible amount of money compared to all your other costs, and it can be quite educational to fool around with such a helicopter). This will probably lead the the destruction of that helicopter, but at the same time you learn a lot. In fact, I would take some existing toy (RC submarine - if they exist - or RC airplane/helicopter) and just build on that. At least you get half the job done for free. Make the sub fly, or make the airplane/helicopter sink. I think that if you design and build this thing from scratch, and you have to ask these basic questions, you will fail. You must be more pragmatic, otherwise you will certainly miss your deadline of December 2011.

I would suggest that I appear to be mocking you. Although my post suggested that I agree with you, my reasoning was clearly flawed, and the final link shows that a very small island can have a HUGE immigration problem with just 35,000 people.

I demand that we regard all European countries as individual countries (and not as one big European Union) to make the immigration problem of the Netherlands (where I live) smaller. The Netherlands has nowhere near as many immigrants as the USA, and probably less than Australia too. And for the sake of comparison, we're an independent nation, just like Australia or the USA. And because according to Greg Boyles way of regarding immigration (which I use too now), and because we shall regard all the EU as independent nations, we can say that the 27 countries which are a part of the EU have no immigration problem, because it is a lot less than Australia. Also interesting: For example, in Lampedusa (a small island, part if Italy), there are only 35,000 immigrants per year... and let's face it, compared to the Big Picture, 35,000 people isn't much, is it? So, I guess we can say that there is no immigration problem in Lampedusa?

I had already agreed that (1) in language the concept of melting is quite stretched (and wrong), and (2) you do not have to always prove that something melts in order to be allowed to make the statement. Anyway... I am curious. Tell me how you would determine whether this component melts or decomposes (I just picked something off the net, and I also do not know). Let's assume you have just been put in charge to do the research to figure out what happens to this component if you heat it up... and our first observation is that it turns to a liquid. (I didn't copy paste all the other "Not Available".) Point is, that this is a science forum, and we also deal with these things. Not only with the verbal communication between a child and its mother regarding an ice cream. Our scientific definition, which we discuss on this science forum will also have to be used for problematic things like this, when it's not child's play to make a correct statement.

I think that there is a limit to how thin you can make the blade: if you make them any thinner they would break. Similarly, there are limitations to how fat you can make the outer part. But I am sure that there are other arguments too (a combination of aerodynamics in different winds, noise, and of course investment costs). Remember, those blades are pretty huge, so one of the primary problems is to keep them in 1 piece. (source of picture)

Yes, but we know from endless experiments that it is reversible. There is no irreversible aspect. If there is, please show me. You just can't seem to give me a decent explanation why you refuse to have it in your definition of melting/freezing that the two are reversible, when they always are.

Well... technology has enabled us to discover that it is in fact reversible. That is also why the enthalpy of melting is the same as the enthalpy of freezing (but with an opposite sign). And if there is an irreversible aspect to it, we don't call it melting. That's why I asked you the question.

So, could melting, according to you, be irreversible? That means that the opposite (freezing) does not require the exact opposite of enthalpy change?

Why? I do not undertstand why you say that... and I think we must clear this up before we can proceed.

Hmm... fair point. I guess that sometimes, it is used in a functional and responsible way too. Not often though (imho).

Like with a safe: the quality of a safe is expressed in how long it would take someone to break into it (using a plasma torch or whatever)... not IF it's possible (it always is). If the effort it takes to hack into a system is more costly than the possible reward, then your system is safe enough. I agree that any system can be hacked, if you note that you just need enough information about the security to breach it. You can just infiltrate (even in a physical way) the less secure systems, and build from there. You just need enough information about the security protocols to avoid them. If you cannot hack the technology from the outside, then you just have to disable it from the inside. And you can get on the inside by applying for a job. Sure, it's a big effort to break in, but it can be done.

I notice some members (esp. newbies) using fonts and colors to pimp their posts. Why is this allowed? Some people apparently think that their post is so good that it deserves a new color, and a new font. Some others just like to push all the buttons that they can find because they are 10 years old, and that's what a 10-year-old does. Personally, I find it ugly and distracting. Because that's what grumpy old guys do. Someone has made an effort to choose the style of this forum, and it's quite pleasing. It's just ugly to have a single post in a thread which breaks with the style. In addition, the way I read / scan a thread is simple: I read everything in the default font/color, because everything else is not relevant for a discussion (signatures, and forum-related buttons and text). It's annoying when someone breaks that unwritten rule. In fact, I find that I often skip such a post entirely. If there is a single post in a thread which uses a different font/color, then it looks like something between a large signature, and a regular post. I mean, sure, people can have a personal style. But I think that if we would disable the option to use different fonts and colors, we would lose almost nothing.