-
Posts
2757 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by JohnB
-
I couldn't think of any other word. You were making a lot of claims about what is going to happen and I read a lot of links and papers, none of which backed up a word you said. Yet not one of the links backed you up. It's not a matter of me not accepting them, you failed to show that they are true. If it was the case, then I would agree with you. But let's get a few things straight. Putting flouride or anything else in the water is a National decision, the Commission has no say in the matter. Bringing it up is irrelevent. Concerning GM food, I will quote from the Commissions "General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods", link from here. So the standard is that the above items will always be declared. The standard also says; So the standard quite clearly states that rather than being forced to include GM foods, packaging must clearly show that anything containing GM foods must be clearly labelled as such. So the standards really say the exact opposite to what you have claimed. Further; So again, the standard is the exact opposite to your claims earlier. Rather than mandatory irradiation, radiated foods must be clearly marked as such on the packaging. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOops, hit the wrong button without finishing the post. Now then, you next set of quotes was from the "EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL". It therefore applies only to EU nations and not everybody else. The "Commission" referred to in the document is an EU commission and not the one we have been talking about and the point is again irrelevent. The last link you gave cancelled out every accusation you had made earlier in the thread to the extent you are left with only one complaint. To your last point; What did you expect? Really? Do you have meetings on International Air Travel standards and not have the Airlines and Aircraft Manufacturers there? Do you have commissions into national transport strategies and not have the transport companies there? So I ask again. Where is the problem?
-
Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?
JohnB replied to tristan's topic in Speculations
I have to agree with Mooeypoo. If you think about it a bit, the physical requirements for a race becoming technological are pretty basic. 1. At least two eyes to allow depth perception. You could get away with one if they are significantly different from how ours work. 2. Limbs capable of manipulating tools and modifying their environment. 3. Brain developed enough for conscious thought. 4. A body structure that allows then to operate outside a watery environment. After that, the form and/or number of appendages and where things are placed is an open game. The possibilities are endless. Science fiction books are full of descriptions of very different forms of intelligent life and their biologies. How and why they are like they are. I add that we are like we are simply because our very, very distant ancestors won the survival race. Go back far enough in the fossil records and you see amazing things. Trilateral symmetry, all sorts of things. If they had won instead of our ancestors, life on Earth would look very, very different. A quick search on the "Cambrian Explosion" shows many creatures that are no longer in the evolutionary chain. The Arthropods survived and they did not, but if it had gone differently........ Mooeypoo would be attending Miss Universe with stars in all 5 eyes and rings on all 13 appendages. (And we would still vote for her.) -
Thanks severian. So would it be correct to say that "normal" matter is baryonic and "dark" matter is probably non-baryonic?
-
timo, you could be right. I'm not a physicist and I am operating under the assumption that normal matter is classified as baryonic. It appears to make up about 5% of the Universe. My point was simply that once we find (assuming we do) the ultimate particle of normal matter, there is still a lot to find. rigney, the best way to find things out and find out what people think is to ask. Nobody here will have a go at you for asking questions, that is what we all do, all the time. The big thing is to be willing to put a bit of time into things. Sometimes some background information is needed to understand a topic, so if you ask a question it might be suggested that you read certain links. Take the time to read the recommended articles. If you still don't "get it", then ask again and try to be clear about where the trouble is. More articles will probably be suggested to help you through as well as advice and explanations. Asking questions is fine, but in return we ask that people listen to the answers. We have some brilliant people here, just trying to understand what some of them do makes my brain start dribble out my ears. They are more educated than I am and are a hell of a lot smarter, but not once have I ever seen anybody "pull rank" or treat people poorly because they are less educated. Nobody will tell you to scram. BTW, what is W.V.? The Pandoras Box argument has always been there. When Europeans were exploring the world in ships, there were fears that the crews might bring back strange and dreadful diseases. Nobody can tell with certainty the final outcome of any discovery, but if we don't look, then we will never discover anything. Carried to its logical conclusion, if we had used that idea too much in the past, we would all still be sitting around a fire wearing animal skins and not having this discussion. I'm here because Lt. James Cook came to the Southern Ocean to observe the transit of Venus and to see if the east coast of Terra Australis was as inhospitable as the west coast. He found verdant land and colonies were set up. North America was colonized by Europeans because Columbus was looking for a short cut to India. The Clovis people went to America because somebody wondered about the land to the east. While we can't guarantee the outcome, if we never look, we will never find. (And there will always be seemingly good reasons to "Put it off until a later date.") Cheers.
-
Well, I got 1 wrong, 2 and 3 I didn't consider as I'm not a yank, and I thought 4 was garbage. The men were more interested in getting home after the war was over because the job was done. Sometimes it is correct though. I remember research some years ago where it was decided that happy people are less likely to commit suicide. Did we really need research to tell us that? But I'm not the only one who keeps track... Wired Science. Obese people have trouble using seatbelts? Really? I wonder why.... Physically active parents tend to raise physically active children? Who'da thunk it? Young Britons often have sex with strangers while on vacation? No, that can't be right. Fox News. High Heels Lead to Foot Pain. You're kidding.... Men Much More Interested Than Women in Casual Sex. I'm sure that was news to the ladies. Kids' TV Is Full of Ads for High-Fat and High-Sugar Foods. Surely not, kids TV is full of ads for fruit and healthy food, aren't they? Times Online Adolescents might get bullied because of the way they look. And if they do, it can undermine their self-esteem. That can't be right, kids are always nice to each other. Employees who take long spells of sick leave have a higher risk of death than those who do not. You mean people who are often sick for extended periods will probably die earlier than people who are healthy? But to take the cake; Like, who cares? The Telegraph (UK) Some people don't like learning online. But some do. What, people are different? Those who use prescription medications without a prescription were more likely to have drug abuse problems. I would have thought that using prescription drugs without a prescription would have been, I don't know, part of the bloody definition of drug abuse. Try Googling for "Obvious science", 32,600,000 results. I do take your point about hindsight, it does confirm things. There is another side though, some things are obvious if you think about them. Normally, you just don't think about them. Take obese people and seatbelts. Most people, it just doesn't cross their mind, but if you asked the question "Do you think an obese person would have trouble doing up a seatbelt?", they would think for a few seconds and say "Yes". Much that is declared "Science of the Bleeding Obvious" or "No Sh*t Sherlock Science" isn't so much "Well, everybody knows that" as "Well, 10 seconds of rational thought could have told you that". Don't forget that some "Sciences" suffer from the same thinking as your witch example: Psych: "You're suffering from blah, blah" Patient: "No, I'm not." Psych: "Ah, you're suffering from blah, blah and Denial." The way "Repressed Memory Syndrome" was handled in Australia sort of soured me on Psychologists. The bad ones used it and the good ones said nothing. My opinion has not been improved by the push to have "Disagreeing with the Psychologist" classified as a clinical symptom of "Denial". Denying you have denial is a symptom of denial? It's like something out of "Life of Brian", you can't win no matter what you say. Cheers.
-
Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?
JohnB replied to tristan's topic in Speculations
What sport? I somehow can't picture you as a weightlifter. Quick question. In an Interstellar, multi species society, exactly how do you judge a Miss Universe competition? I mean, tentacles might look good on some races, but I doubt they would appeal to humanoid judges. And the questions....... "So, Miss South Capricornia, how do you feel about interspecies marraiges as recently allowed on Aldebaran IV?" -
You forget, even if we find the "ultimate" particle, it is only the ultimate baryonic particle. That still leaves 95% of Universal matter to explore. We're talking here about how Universes are created. No offence to our physicists, but I doubt that little mystery will be solved in the next 20 years, or the next 20 centuries. Each time we find out something new, our understanding of how much more there is that we don't know expands.
-
You're making a lot of accusations. How about some specifics in the documentation. Show me where. Demonstrate where Pharma is setting the standard. Those rights are not "inalienable", they are simply prohibited under UN Human Rights Conventions. Where in any of the pages you have linked to are people being experimented on? Where are people being subjected to medical treatment against their will? Where in the documents and pages you are linking to is this being suggested? There are national laws concerning medical treatment, but that is a local matter. Can you show where this is going to be mandated by the Commission? They do not mandate, they suggest and recommend. Can you show the relevent documents that demonstrate how these advisories are to become law? Where in the International agrrements is it stated? Where's the secrecy? It's a Commission of the WHO. They have a website for crying out loud. Their actions are so secretive you can post links to them. Just because something isn't in the MSM every day, doesn't mean it's secretive. And yes, I heard about around 15 years ago. As for your last 4 points, (copied from your link); In two years? The article was written 13 years ago! Seems like they are bit slow in moving up their agenda. Can you give me something more substantive than vague accusations and conspiracy theories? The one about Pharma shutting out alternative therapies has been around for years. So far it hasn't happened.
-
Sheesh, physicists! You shouldn't be allowed to talk to politicians without a scriptwriter. There are two possibilities. You find the Higgs, or you don't. If don't find it, then there are a few options. a) Say that the theory was slightly wrong and the Higgs is at 2.5 TeV, so you need a bigger gun. b) Say that new theories predict a different particle that is harder to find and so you need a bigger gun. c) Say that even though you didn't find the Higgs, you noticed some really odd readings at 1 TeV that require further study and you need a bigger gun. Or you could try some variations on the themes. Now, if you do find it; a) Say you found it, but the resolution isn't good enough. So like an Astronomer needs a bigger telescope, you need a bigger gun. b) Say you found it, but it isn't behaving as expected. So to study it better, you need a bigger gun. c) Say you found it and it hints at other "needed" particles. So to study them, you need a bigger gun. And of course variations on the theme. Either way it goes, make sure you put certain things into any conversation with the politicians. "It "might" help make nuclear reactors cleaner and better for the environment." "It "may" give us the insight to make practical fusion reactors. Cheap power and no pollution." "Reduce pollution" "our childrens future" The first rule of dealing with politicians: Whatever you are asked to study, it is always harder, more complex and worse than you thought. Therefore you need a bigger budget to study it. Any further advice on multi billion dollar projects comes at my standard fee. :D
-
Mate, I asked for a specific and the first link is to a list of 76 pdfs? Where in that list is the problem? Drugs and antibiotics are used to treat illnesses in farm animals, just as they are in humans. Your second link is to the maximum allowable residue in food for sale. Again, where is the problem? Most of the limits are in picagrams per kilogram. Don't you think that there should be upper limits for such residues? Streptomycin , according to your first link is a strong intra muscular antibiotic. It's used to fight infections, ffs. Your second link for the drug simply lists the maxmum dosage allowable for food animals. Specifically .05 mg/kg of body weight per day. Where is the problem with having a set maximum dosage for a drug? BTW, that is the only reference to the drug in the entire pdf. Sulfadimidine. Again, what is the problem? The first link is to test results. Note that some of the rabbits were given 1800 mg/kg bw per day for two weeks. The second link is to the maximum allowable residue. 25 picagrams/litre in the case of milk. How much Sulfadimidine residue do you think is appropriate? The amount used in tests, amounts 100s of times lower? Next point. How is being the head of food safety a conflict of interest when sitting on a board on food safety? Last point. Yes, even vitamins and minerals can become toxic above certain levels. So it is reasonable to find out what those levels are. From my reading last night following a number of links about food additive regulations, vitamins and minerals added as a supplement to food for the increase of nutritional value are not covered by the regulations provided that they do not exceed 25% of the RDI. Sorry, but I'm still not seeing a problem.
-
I agree with the Cap'n, if it does, then we have more research to do to decide what to do next. Do we try peeking behind the slice? Yes. Always. Mankind is a curious creature, exploring is what we do. Whether it's the LHC, or sitting on top of a rocket, or dropping down to the abyssal deeps, those at the forefront are continuing a tradition that started when the first of our ancestors wondered "What is over that hill?" The dress has changed from animal hides to flight suits and lab coats, but the drive to look, to see, to find is the same. If we ever stop looking, then we will have given up one of the major things that makes us Human. Though much is taken, much abides; and though We are not now that strength which in the old days Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are, One equal-temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. Alfred, Lord Tennyson.
-
If the big gun at CERN can't find what we are looking for, then we need a bigger gun.
-
IA, I'm disappointed in you. Soak it in soluble nutrients and have the best of both worlds.
-
Pangloss recently started a thread about President Obama asking Congress for another $60 Billion. I'm not going to comment on either the legality or necessity of the request, but it made me wonder, do the numbers mean anything to politicians any more? $60B is equal to 20% of the total Australian Federal budget. I know we are only a small nation, but, jees that's a lot of money. US pollies seem to throw around billions and tens of billions like ours throw around millions and tens of millions. While the scale differs you have to wonder if the pollies are connected to the reality that it's not their money, it belongs to the people. Because it isn't theirs, is it just a number to them now?
-
DoubleK, could you produce some hint of where these things are in the standards, because I'm reading them and haven't found substantiating evidence yet. In particular Clause 22 of the "Recommended Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding" states quite clearly; I also note that in reading the "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements", it makes no mention of toxins. It states; I can't see a problem with this, nor can I find anything that says all meats/foods have to be irradiated. Could you be more specific as to what exactly bothers you about the standards? To save the rest of us reading 5,000 pages to try and find out?
-
Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?
JohnB replied to tristan's topic in Speculations
Are you kidding??? Last time I did that I had to listen to Vogon poetry! -
Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?
JohnB replied to tristan's topic in Speculations
I'm not sure I do. It is my understanding that the prevailing thought was that the Troy of Homer did not exist, that the Trojan War was a greatly inflated account of a small tribal squabble. Hence there was no city to find. It was also widely held that since Homers account of the war included the Amazons as defenders of Troy ("Female warriors? Preposterous!") the rest of the account must be fictional as well. I add that the works of Plutarch of Chaeronea are third hand at best. Plutarch was born in 46AD, some 400 years after Alexander. His works are based on the earlier writings of Callisthenes of Olynthus who wrote "Deeds of Alexander". Other references to this work put the visit by Alexander to Troy at exactly 1,000 years to the day of the Trojan defeat. I think that this was viewed (quite rightly) as propaganda. I'm not trying to diminish the work of Plutarch, as his synthesis contains much that is now lost to us in original documents and puts many accounts into context. I sometimes wonder if he didn't do the first "Metastudy". So many works have been lost, it is saddening. How about some of the physicists around here hurry up and build a damn time machine so that we can go back and recover them? -
jackson33, you appear to be under a misapprehension. I'm not tied to the Euro because is some 12,000 miles away. I'm an Aussie, not a Pom. We have similar arguments, however the difference is twofold. 1. We are a Federation of States that combined to form a Nation, whereas you are a Union of Independent States. TBH, it's something I still sometimes have trouble getting my head around. To me, you are a Nation or you aren't, the quasi inbetween is difficult to understand. 2. While we argue here a bit about Sovereignty, we argue more about responsibility. For example, rather than argue who has the "right" to control Healthcare, we argue about who will be "responsible" for it. If responsibility is split, as it so often is between the State and Federal Govs, then exactly who is responsible for which part? It creates a subtle difference in the argument. If the Feds want control of something, they do so in the full knowledge that if it goes belly up, they are on their own. State govs, even those controlled by the same party, will not help them. Rather than argue who has Sovereignity in an issue, we argue about who is willing to be hung out to dry if it goes wrong. Avoiding blame is often more important to a pollie than any "State Rights". Our systems are very different and the US will ultimately have to solve it's problems on it's own. It is not up to us to tell you how to run your government or how to structure your society. All that the rest of us can do is say how things work in other Democracies and maybe there will be something that the US will find worthwhile.
-
Yes, I did know the Ptolemys were Greek. I simply referred to them as Egyptian artifacts because of where they were found. Artisticly speaking the Ptolomaic period, as you say, produced an amazing synthesis of Greek and Egyptian art. The statue is often referred to as a "Queen" depicted as Isis. I sincerely hope they manage to find the rest of her. As to the statue, have a look at some of the other pics. They are mostly unusually clear of debris. However the harbour is shallow, generally less than 25 feet deep. It has been virtually fully surrounded by breakwaters since the fall of the city, so there will be little soil swept in by currents. No rivers or streams empty into the harbour so river sediment isn't a problem. Underwater pics show a lack of seaweed or other growths, so the cleanliness of the statues isn't too surprising. The New Acropolis Museum is something my wife and I hope to see in the next couple of years. Greece is on our list, and by the time we get there, I'm hoping a Trireme has surfaced. BTW, I believe the Greek government is seriously pushing for the return of the Elgin Marbles. Good luck.
-
Technologically/Intellectually Superior Aliens: "Unpleasant Visits"?
JohnB replied to tristan's topic in Speculations
I thank you both for your comments. This is a vexatious subject an interpretations always vary. While discounting accounts from ancient times is possibly misleading, it is also possible to read too much into an account. Language, context and vocabulary need to be understood to even come close to an evaluation. Some examples. Volcanics. The words of Pliny the Younger were discounted as fanciful for nearly 2,000 years. Volcanoes didn't do the things he described. Now, of course, we know about Pyroclastic clouds and guess what? His description is an accurate account of the events in 79AD. Rogue Waves. Accounts of these massive and destructive waves have been around since the early days of sail, continuing to the modern era. Universally discounted by scientists until recently. By using satellite imagery it was "Oops". The waves do exist. The sailors were right, the Oceanographers were wrong. On the other hand. Fiery chariots. Descriptions of these things come down from the distant past. The problem is that they could mean anything. It could be a purely literary device used to convey something that due to lack of cultural context the meaning has been lost. However, the vocabulary of the time was limited. An account of someone leaving in a fiery chariot may be the best description he could give. The only thing that emitted light was fire and the only thing that moved quickly and carried people were chariots. So a person entering a glowing craft and leaving at speed would give a fiery chariot description even though fire was not actually involved. So we can't really draw any conclusion from these descriptions due to context and vocabulary. (And we are totally ignoring the added problem of translation errors) Things in paintings. Sorry guys, but not as persuasive as at first glance. Historically speaking, signs, portents and strange things in the sky have always been linked to momentous occasions or people. For many historical artists, it wouldn't be a painting of the Madonna without something flying around in the background. A good example here is the Bayeax Tapestry from Britain. Scenes 15 and 16 are clear. "HIC DEDERUNT HAROLDO CORONAM REGIS. HIC RESIDET HOROLD REX ANGLORUM. STIGANT ARCHIEPISCOPUS. ISTI MIRANT STELLAM." or "Here they gave the royal crown to Harold. Here enthroned is Harold, King of England. Archbishop Stigand. These people marvel at the star." (Halley's Comet IIRC.) This is another area where cultural context is important for fact is mixed with fiction. We know the comet was there and the depiction is probably accurate. However, being on the top border of the Tapestry, it shares space with Unicorns, Griffins and other imaginary beasts. Just as a fault in one area of evidence doesn't make it all wrong, truth and fact in one area doesn't make it all a factual account either. Culturally, and all cultures share this, the sky has always been the place of wonderous things. Stars fall from it and have caused destruction, fires, that sort of thing. The Gods live there. Why do they live there? Quite simply so that nobody can go and check. They wouldn't live underground as that is dark and frightening. They can't live over the mountains, over the sea or some such because it is guaranteed that some silly bugger will go and look. The sky is the only place you can put things so that they cannot be checked up on. I'll add a final point that I find interesting. UFO accounts from the modern era are remarkable in that they evolve. Accounts from the mid 1800s almost invariably describe (often in detail) the propellors seen on the craft. There is an early account (1600s?) of one of these "Airships" suffering an accident with it's anchor catching on a church steeple. One of the crew climbed down the rope to free the anchor and the skyship sailed happily away. Dirigables were being described some years before entering into the public consciousness. They evolved into cigar shaped objects with flames at the aft end, apparently some form of rocket remarkably similar to early depictions of Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon. Cigar shaped objects are still commonly reported, but generally without the flames now. In contrast, the classic "saucer" has remained unchanged since reports first started being recorded. Round, sometimes with a dome and sometimes with a raised section with visible portholes. Why has one evolved and the other not? We can of course add to this the rise of the Triangles. This shape was not common at all but is increasingly seen today. Personally I think these are probably stealth aircraft and the USAF finds it expedient to allow them to be UFOs. Since they have a rather colourful record of intruding into the airspace of other nations, it is better to have a UFO report than to admit that they were somewhere they shouldn't be. (Funny how denial turns into an "off course" B-2 when somebody threatens to take a shot at the unknown object.) Edit to add. I'd like to see some references for that. Every contemporary account I've read said that archaeologists thought Schleimann was chasing a phantom and that Troy did not exist. They thought he wouldn't find it because it wasn't there to be found. I add that Roman accounts would have been based on the earlier Greek and as such could not be considered an "independent" verification. -
michel123456, the statue first came to my notice in an archaeological article on the Alexandria digs. The picture above doesn't do it justice. My purely personal opinion is that this unknown artist was at least the equal of Michaelangelo. To create such an effect in granite using rather primitive tools is nothing short of genius. I found the picture above by using a Google images search for Franck Goddio, the lead archaeologist for the underwater explorations. Here. It's well worth looking through some pictures as the quantity, size and quality of the statuary and other items found is truly staggering. The digs have also shown us that we have vastly underestimated the size of the quakes that destroyed this amazing city. Adjoining parts of columns have been found separated by up to 200 metres. It takes a lot of force to chuck a 1 ton block that far. Egypt gets 11% of it's GDP from tourism and is going all out with new and amazing museums. The new "Great Library" is already open. The "Grand Egyptian Museum" is due to open in 2012, with space for 100,000 artifacts and 100,000 square metres of floorspace. Plans for a new underwater museum in Alexandria have hit some funding problems, but I have no real doubt that it will go ahead. It's too good a moneyspinner not to. Designs are at the architects site here. A perfect complement to the New Library. Expect to see the museum battles heat up soon as Egypt attempts to get the Rosetta Stone back from the Brits and the marvellous Nefertiti bust back from the Berlin Museum as well as other items from around the world. Cheers.
-
jackson33. The One Nation thing was 12 odd years ago. While they did gain most of their support from established conservatives, quite a bit came from the left as well. All the major parties got scared. There are major differences between our systems, but a biggy is that you guys seem to give your politicians a free pass and then wonder why they don't respond to the electorate. For 8 years, everything was Bush's fault, and for the next 4 it will be Obama's. Yet every piece of legislation passed has gone before and been voted on by both the Lower and Upper House. So unless the President is in fact a Dictator, then your politicians bear some responsibility too for poor ideas and legislation. Why is it always the fault of Bush (for example) when for the last few years of his Presidency the Democrats controlled both Houses? The buck might stop at the Presidents desk, but he ain't the only one making the decisions. From the outside it is painfully obvious that your politicians can and will do whatever they bloody well like because the partisanship and concentration on the Presidency will mean that the President will get the blame. They know that they will not be judged on how they behave or vote, but on how closely they are identified with the current President and how popular he is. Until such time as politicians at meeting are met with shouts of "We don't care what the President says, we are here to talk about you and your voting record", the situation won't change. The various States not wishing to give up Sovereignty is a different issue. However, if you apologise profusely and ask very nicely, I'm sure that Her Majesty will welcome you back and install a good Governor until you build a civilised government for your nation.
-
I was wondering about this myself.
-
While posting a thread on the upcoming Egyptology Exhibit at the Franklin Institute I realised that there was nowhere to post that sort of information. Perhaps a sub heading in General Discussion? Like the Book Sub forum? In this case it was Egyptology, but I dare say people would be interested in art collections that are touring and that type of thing. Perhaps a museum opening a new wing? We wouldn't want High School Science fairs or pop star tours, but important exhibits in their field would be of interest to members and they might not hear about otherwise. Just a suggestion.
-
While checking things for another thread I found that an exhibit of Egyptian artifacts is coming to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. The link is here. Titled "Cleopatra; The Search for the last Queen of Egypt" it showcases more than 250 artifacts, many that have never been displayed before. Artifacts are from both normal excavations in Egypt and recent underwater excavations in the harbour of Alexandria. Full details are at the link. I know we don't do plugs here, but this is going to truly be a "once in a lifetime" opportunity. I strongly urge any member or lurker here to make the time to see this exhibit if they have any interest at all in ancient Egypt.