Severian

Don't you think that that sort of statement might be the root of the problem? If people like you didn't post this sort of crap doen't you think the debates would be a bit more constructive?

David Gross doesn't have much Charm - just plenty of arrogance. I have never met Briane Greene, but I have seen him on TV. Ed Witten is also surprisingly unconfident (socially).

That's because you are shite at football.

Not really. It is still there - your fields can't be in position and momentum eigenstates at the same time. But the idea of 'borrowing energy' is really just one way of looking at it, and probably not the best way.

Lol... something tells me the author has never met Ed.

That is correct. In Quantum Field Theory the HUP becomes contorted into a statement about on-shell or off-shell. A particle is on-shell if [math]E^2 = m^2c^4+p^2c^2[/math] and off-shell if this is violated. The more off-shell a particle is, the more likely it is to decay, so we see the HUP emerging: it appears that the particle has borrowed energy (ie its energy is not [math]\sqrt{m^2c^4+p^2c^2}[/math]) and then must decay quickly to 'pay it back'. In actuality all particles are slightly off-shell since it is impossible to hit the mass-shell relation exactly (a point on a line is infinitely small).

Does this mean that when we go out on a date we should be offering our date coffee rather than trying to get them drunk?

I must admit to having some sympathy for her point of view. I don't think the deaths of people in 9/11 were any more tragic than people dieing of cancer or in automobile accidents. As someone who is not American (and live in the country which has been plague by terrorists for decades) I found myself a little bemused by the extreme emotional reaction that 9/11 caused. And it definitely does look like some of the widows are 'milking it'.

I don't have a desire for the state to recognise my chocolate addiction. If I were gay, why would I have a desire for the state to recognise that? Indeed, why would I have a desire for the state to recognise my love for my partner (in anything other than a legal sense)? Someone who wants the state to recognize (or more correctly, give approval of) their relationships, clearly has no idea what the state is supposed to be. The recognition or approval must come from the community that you live in - not the beaurocrats in your capital city.

Food irradiation is a good example because it sounds to the average person on the street like a terrible idea. But when you consider the dangers (and the deaths caused by) spraying your food with pesticides and preservatives, it is by far the prefered option. Nucelar generally is a bit like this I think. Sure nuclear has its problems, although they are no where near as big as people believe. But the other forms of energy production have much much bigger problems. It is just that their problems have either always been with us so we don't notice them, or have not been demonised to the same extent. When I look around at the old buildings in my city and see how black they are from the soot of the industrial age, I find it hard to believe that people tolerated the use of fossil fuels for so long.

I think you may have misunderstood my post. When I said "Yes, of course, as long as the tax break were removed" I meant removed from everyone, not just removed for gay couples. The 'everyone' in that implies I am treating them all in the same way.

I don't think it will make any difference. Someone else will just step up into the position.

You have a point, or are you just 'boggling'?

If I thought that no schools should be run by the government then I would be supporting the abolishion of state run schools, and encouraging people not to use them, not trying to get more people into them.

Yes, of course, as long as the tax break were removed (ie. the contract would be about rights) and there was no implicit or explicit requirement that they engage in predetermined bedroom activities. I would also want it open to everyone, so a brother and sister, or two platonic friends, or one guy and his hareem, or a mini communist collective (or whomever) could all share the same rights.

Strawmanning again I see. I never said that they should be treated differently.

Competitive in what sense? There have been far far more deaths caused by the exploitation of fossil fuels than there have ever been from nuclear.

I fail to see the link between agreeing with someone's argument and cognitive function. If the person's argument is wrong then agreeing with it would be a lack of cognitive function surely?

Black Hole inflation? Is that when you have so much demand for Black Holes, but insufficient supply, that you push their prices up?

I see a lot of the arguments against nuclear power seem to revolve around the issue of waste. Do you have any idea how much waste is produced by a nuclear power station, as compared with a conventional carbon-based power station? The answer is 'not very much'. So let me turn the question around. If you are going to build conventional power stations, what are you going to do with all the waste? Are you going to release it into the atmosphere? This seems like a bad idea to me given the current global warming due to CO2 emissions. Are you going to bury it, and store up the problem for the next generation? For that matter, do you have any idea about how much waste hydro or solar power will produce? How much maintainance do they require? Do you have to clean the solar panels with detergents? How much disruption to the environment would there be from having thousands of square kilometres covered in solar panels?

'Banned' is maybe the wrong word. 'Discontinued' may be better.

Implicit in the institute of marriage is the assumption of sexual relations. (In fact, in most countries marriages can be annulled if you have never had sex with each other - no divorce required.) I don't think it is any business of the state what you get up to in your bedroom. There should be no requirement for me to have sex with my partner, enforced by the state. Furthermore, I see no reason why a married couple should be given any tax breaks. Why are they more favoured than a couple who live together? Why should they have more rights than a couple who live together? In fact, why should they have any more rights than a brother and sister who live together, or two straight blokes who are best buddies and find it convenient (and pleasant) to share a house. (It seems rather bizarre to me that we only accept two men can share their lives if they are having sex.) So, as Mokele said, I think we should leave 'marriage' as a religious or social institution with no legal ramifications. Each church or societal grouping can decide what it wants to call 'marriage' without interference from the state. They can then decide who qualifies, just as they decide who is accepted into their society. If a church does not want to 'marry' gay couples then that is up to them, and I would suggest to the gay couple that they find another church (or society) in which they feel comfortable. Any rights which are now confered with a marriage 'contract' can instead be confered with a normal legal contract (which contains no assumptions about who you are sleeping with). (If you want to make it easier, the state could have a sample standard contract drawn up by its lawyers which people could then use if they want to keep lawyer fees down.)