Ophiolite

The change of emphasis between the first two appears quite natural. The Americans began the initial stages of the attack through artillery, mortar and air attack. As their troops moved into position they came under counter bombardment from the insurgents. The second suite of changes is either the BBC reacting to a UK government request that they emphasise the Iraqi component of the attack, or laziness on the part of the journalists, who are simply picking up on press releases from the Iraqui government and US forces. Given the antipathy of the BBC for the government (UK) and having known a couple of journalists, I vote for explanation two.

Very interesting. The article notes that: 'paleoanthropology professor from Gadjah Mada University, Teuku Jacob.... said that ....if they (the Australian scientists) say the skeleton was the ancestor of the Indonesian people, forget it.' SInce the Australian's made no such claim one wonders if the professor has actually read the Nature paper. Later the article notes, 'Soejono, the head of the National Archeology (sic) Institute, who said the Australians should have involved them when making the announcement considering that none of the Australian scientists were present at the time of the discovery.' Given that five of the seven authors of the Nature paper work at the National Archaeology Institute one, again, wonders. Looks like wounded national pride. One suspects that Flores man is about to take a back seat to Homo iratus academius. Thanks for keeping us to date on this AuburnGirl.

Why would you use a latinised form of a neologism of russian origin?

So, in a nutshell, you are saying eschew obfuscation?

Remember that we do not vote for our Prime Minister. The voters in Blair's parliamentary constituency are the only ones who can vote for or against him. So, yes, I am suggesting that the Labour Party will certainly win the next election. The Tories have lost credibility with too large a proportion of the population to be re-elected, the Liberal Democrats have not yet gained enough credibility. However, many labour MP's will lose their seats. The primary reason for this will, probably rightly, be seen as Blair (and not just because of Iraq). There will be a leadership challenge and Blair will be replaced. So I think your understanding is sound. The title Prime Minister is meant to imply 'first among equals'. We have a government by cabinet. Some of the more thoughtful objections to Blair are based as much upon his methods as his actions. He has pursued a more 'presidential' style leadership than any prime minister I can think of. I am not saying a Presidential approach is wrong, but it wrong for the UK with its present constitution. You have separation of powers to control excesses by any particualr branch. Blair has circumvented such controls here to the point that some MP's wish to impeach him - a process that hasn't been invoked for a couple of centuries. You may have gathered I am no fan of Blair. My opinion of him from an early stage was 'smarmy git.' [i'm not sure how well that translates to American - brown-nosing asshole, perhaps.] Bush utterly appals me in so many ways I have lost count, but I will say this for him. He has firm beliefs and he acts on those beliefs. Not so with our Tony. Sorry, that was more than you asked, but you triggered a sensitive spot. Edit: It wouldn't be correct, I think, to say that he would be replaced by Parliamentary methods, since Parliament would play no part in the act. The Labour Party would, by whatever their current method is, hold a leadershiip election. If Blair lost, the winner would replace him as Prime Minister, subject of course to the assent of that gracious lady, Her Majesty the Queen.

I am perplexed by what it is you are trying to say or what you think I am trying to say. I quote you again. " england conquered territories and eliminated all opposition (including governments) with haste and an iron fist" I have explained that the conquering was certainly not done with haste (and some historians woudl argue was almost accidental), taking a couple of centuries in the case of India to become total; that it was done through and with the connivance of the existing power structure; and was done primarily as a trading exercise. i.e. 'How can we make as much money out of this as possible.' Am I defending these actions and suggesting that they were not accompanied by violence, persecution and exploitation. No. Just noting that, as far as I can see, this differs from Mongol motives and methods.

Salamat pagi , Wassouf. I have this uncomfortable feeling that I am writing a class exercise for you. (If this is not so, please tell me.) I wont, therefore, answer your question, but I will show you how to answer it, with one example. Let's consider the economic impact of the loss of a sustainable timber industry. You should be able to find answers to all these questions from the internet. What is the approximate total area of Indonesia that is (or until recently was) covered by forest? What proportion of this is reasonably accessible? (Near the coast, navigable river, or road system). This one you will have to make an educated guess at. How many mature trees are there on average in one square kilometre? How long does it take a typical tree (of economic use) to grow to maturity? What is the average value of one tree? The answers to these questions will allow you to calculate how many trees might be harvested each year on a replenishment basis and hence the value of the industry that might have been.

Not so. Very much not so. Take India as a classic example. The Empire began there with the machinations of the East India Company - very much a trading operation. Like any trade organisation before the introduction of government ombudsmen and the FDA they used some very sharp practices, that you could certainly characterise as exploitation. As they extended their sphere of influence they did so by 'buying' the local rulers with money or military support. They governed (and exploited) the territory through them. Finally, on a trivial note, 'england conquered territories'! A disproportionate number of the conquerors were Scots. But as I say to my friends from Texas and Alabama, it's an easy mistake for a yankee to make.

It's the one with the most recent post.

Two points: Clearly it is not impossible as it has happened. Please do not qualify an absolute. A thing is either impossible or it is possible. It is not very impossible, slightly impossible, etc. Now I am going to count how many people have registered their birthdays.

Having just re-visited some of this thread I have the impression that the statement "Homosexuality is not pre-determined by genes, but genes may create a pre-disposition towards homosexuality", would be acceptable to all. The remaining dispute appears to be that Sorcerer feels that the individual can choose to over-ride the pre-disposition, whereas others feel this is not a matter of choice.

Even if we all became wholly altrusitic overnight I suspect we would still find money a usefull, indeed, an essential tool, to aid us in the efficient application of resources.

I'm not sure if you are being ironic or serious. The centre of mass of the cable is located at the geosynchronous orbit position. There is nothing 'holding it up' in the sense you imply.Carbon nano-tubes can deliver the necessary strength. All we have to do is figure out how to produce them in sufficient length and that is just a technical problem. I think we could even have a rudimentary elevator before we land on Mars. The estimated costs to build one are almost an order of magnitude less than a Mars mission.

Labour will win with a greatly reduced majority. The Labour party will then kick Blair into touch within ten months.

5614, the way Excel works it treats a the x-axis of a line graph as ordered points, not values. So the [0,0] value plots, apprently, at [1,0]. psi20, use a scatter-graph instead. (Given how good the rest of Excel is the plotting function stinks.)

Damn! And I get such a nice big number too.

You have taken time to prepare your post and it deserves proper consideration when replying. I do not have time, right now, to address each point you have made, but will pick on a couple of them. Well I definitely fit into the 'rank and file' and not the 'intelligencia'. I not quite sure how one could boast about a scientific theory' date=' unless it was one of your own making. So I for one don't fit that part of the profile. Fanatical - I think that one misses for me also. I accept the general theory of evolution because I consider the evidence I have examined for it over many years is convincing. I also find that the 'intelligencia' of evolution are of the same view.Do some of the rank and file become fanatical and ove-zealous in their portrayal of that evidence? Certainly, but that is a failing of theirs, not of the theory. [i']Are you declaring that the "authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia" deny human evolution?[/i] Well, again, that's not me, as I am an agnostic. I am not at all clear why you think it is imperative for atheists to prove evolution. One of the pieces of evidence that causes me to be agnostic rather than atheist is the sheer beauty of evolution. I don't see how evolution is in anyway incompatible with there being an ultimate creator. WillowTree, I obviously know nothing about your background. so please do not take this amiss. Have you read, with an open mind, any book on evolution by one of 'evolution's intelligencia"? I ask, because I have read, extensively, with a very open mind material by 'creationist intelligencia'. They raise some very important points, and highlight areas of uncertainty, but, in my judgement fail to make a case. I shall try to address your points on the paucity of fossils later.

I confess I was being slightly mischevious. But here is my perception (and it is a perception, I stand quite ready to change it). The British Empire, rather like the Roman Empire occupied territories and applied a flexible, but structured system of governance to those territories. This was done as far as possible with minimum disruption to the territory, its people and infrastructure, since the primary goal was for trade. The Mongol Empire was baed on conquest and vassalage. 'We've thumped you and if you don't keep sending us tribute we'll come back and thump you again." I'm simplifying and generalising, but is there not a strong element of truth in these characterisations?

Because they lack vision, imagination, foresight, compassion and may even be slightly intellectually challenged.

This will have the triple advantage of providing energy in the short term, a reduction in population through nuclear accidents in the medium term, and plenty of mutations for evolution to work on in the longer term. Actually, I agree with you, but until we have fusion in place, then our safety controls will have to be much more rigorous than they have been to date.[Anybody know whether the French and Japanese are more effective at safety than us, or more effective at cover ups?]

I agree totally with your final sentence. But when that understanding comes, it may turn out that the observer does play a critical role. I have not detected arrogance at the heart of this explanation (though it is evident in many other scientific pronouncements). As another example, it is not arogant to say humans are the most intelligent species on the planet. It is arrogant to say they are the most important. I've always thought Schroedinger's cat was perfectly capable of observing for itself if it was dead or not. (And while we're at it, if you want a real example of arrogance look no further than your average cat; or maybe its just complacent self importance.)

The most obvious one that I am aware of is the massive deforestation with its consequent extinction of species, destruction of ecologies, removal of a potentially renewable resource, as well as its impact on climate. (Not to mention the impact of the forest fires on health in Indonesia and surrounding states some years ago.) The economic implications are: Elimination of a sustainable timber industry Suppression of the sustained development of a timber processing industry. Elimination of a potentialy massive tourist industry based upon the rain forest Suppresion of the devlopment of a pharmacalogical industry based upon rain forest species Because these are all medium or long term benefits, they have been ignored in favour of the short term economic gains. And since the more populous parts of Indonesia are on an island arc, we might expect vulcanism to come into play from time to time. Destruction of property and infra-structure Destruction of crops Loss of life Evacuation Medical and relief requirements Edit: I'm also overlooking the obvious one of the industrial and transport related pollution. I was appalled by the deterioration in air quality in Jakarta when I re-visited earlier this year. The economic impact of that is the increased medical costs and the lost work days.

But to compensate, you probably look pretty good on skis!