Ophiolite

Therefore you are denying that such a degree would help obtain a job "with local councils (municipal authorities in trans-Atlantic speak?) administering their parks, sports facilities and the like". You doubt that there are companies who provide advice to local government, large commercial organisations and companies involved in providing "outdoor recreation". You haven't considered the many activities in addition to camping that the term covers. I wonder, ThinkingMind, if you may have been precipitate in your choice of forum name.

@eee457 If you choose a career you are not especially interested in because it pays well then you will likely be second rate at it - since you lack interest - will therefore be paid at the lower end of the scale for that work and will be unhappy in your work. If you choose a career that fascinates you then you will likely be very good at it, which will place you in the upper wage range for that career. Even if that is not a great deal of money you will find reward and satisfaction in the work itself. Warning - before you decide, speak to some practicing physicists. Find out what they actually do. It may be quite different from what you think they do.

I am not sure that emulating the style of James Joyce is the best approach on a science forum, but welcome anyway. What I took from your last post was this: "We should be more open minded and learn new things; I am learning new things; when novelty threatens, step back for a moment." Was that even close?

However, you cannot readily teach creative writing until the individual has learned the letters of the alphabet. That can be boring. Making the basics interesting is the challenge to be faced.

In post #11 I detail the clear and undoubted value of each of the degree subjects that Elite Engineers considers to be "career-less". Please explain why you disagree with those assessments and why you still consider degrees in each of these subjects to be pointless.

Before you answer Strange's question let me remind you of a couple of relevant facts. 1. Religion deals with the supernatural. (To me this appears self evident, but if you disagree I can lay out the logic for the statement.) 2. Science is currently based upon methodological naturalism. That is, a basic assumption is that the supernatural, if it exists, is beyond the remit of science and will therefore not be investigated. Therefore, involving religion in science would be, currently and for some time in the past, inappropriate.

How true this is, even today, when ikan bilis forms quadrilateral triangles.

A couple of additional points. 1. If our understanding of planetary formation is broadly correct it is likely that most stars have Oort clouds of their own. 2. It is probable that some comets are "exchanged" between planetary systems, but an orbit around both - as Moontanman noted and Enthalpy demonstrated - is highly unlikely. 3. Comets as far out as half way to Alpha Centauri are retained by only the slightest wisp of gravitational influence from the sun. Another passing star will very easily disrupt that orbit, not necessarily capturing it, but readily tearing it from solar influence.

Why, on a science forum, are we "debating" with someone who has nothing more than an ill informed opinion? Especially when they adamantly refuse to listen to sound technical advice, confuse their own baseless thinking with logic and fail to understand any part of the scientific method! The question was rhetorical. Since using the Ignore button has not prevented me from seeing the nonsense when others quote it, I guess I shall have to avoid the thread until some sense is restored.

I don't have a PhD and I am not in academia. I am however going bald. This is a consequence of tearing my hair out when dealing with young graduates with engineering degrees who have apparently acquired them with the intent of getting a well paying job and not because they loved the subject, or because they wanted to improve their minds. How does that express itself? One is faced with a set of people who seem unable to think for themselves, unable to apply lessons learned in one area to another area, unable to employ lateral thinking, unable to employ critical thinking, unable - by and large - to think. And the error they made - in my opinion - was setting out to get a degree for the sake of getting a degree. The good news is that after challenging their intellects and demanding performance several of them make it. But in the mean time I lose more hair.

Just a note of caution. We don't have seven billion years. We have about one or one and a half billion years before increased solar output renders the Earth wholly uninhabitable. Enough time to build a big mirror, though.

Yes, you are quite right. I think I overlooked it because I don't find it to be a convincing definition. Whatever definition of real I might have on a particular day it would not insist on measurement, though it might like potential observation.

Disconnected points: No one appears to have defined real, thus far. I would have thought that a suitable starting point. In its first century geology was almost devoid of measurements, and it did quite well. Potential energy is a relative thing and so the OP's concerns on this matter may be set aside as semantics, not science. Since I don't know of any way to determine if any of this is real I just use the working assumption that it is. Full circle: when one does attempt to define real one realises it can be as inclusive or exclusive as one wishes and hence is - in my view - not really worth worrying about.

In many countries this would secure a job with local councils (municipal authorities in trans-Atlantic speak?) administering their parks, sports facilities and the like. Do you feel that is not a worthwhile career? I am not clear how classes on microbiology would benefit a civil engineer, so we had better discontinue the microbiolgy. (And if we conduct classes in tents, we can discontinue the civil engineering on the same grounds.) Bollocks! That is precisely why I went to university. I had acquired an interest in geology and I wanted to know more. 1. I have already dealt with the outdoor recreation. 2. Coaches, personal trainers, PE teachers, sports journalists, etc would all find a sports studies degree a benefit to careers in those fields. 3. A creative writing degree could provide the skill set to become a published novelist, a teacher, a prolific writer of magazine articles,etc. At the very least it would reduce the risk that two sentences in an online forum would contain three egregious spelling errors. 4. An Art History degree opens up the possibility of working as a museum curator, an author, a role in advertising, a teacher, etc. 5. Historians have found employment in the intelligence services, journalism, publishing, local and national government departments responsible for historical buildings, etc. 6. If you doubt that there are psychologists employed by governments, health services, educational establishments, sporting organisations, advertising agencies, industry, etc, then you need your head examined.......by a psychologist. 7. With a degree in English careers open up in teaching, advertising, publishing and many more areas. The vehicle does not have a single destination, despite what you erroneously think. Absolutely not. Clearly you didn't go to college to enhance your writing skills. Speak for yourself. Many people go to college because they are interested in acquiring knowledge in general or a particular subject. I can argue that because there are many thousands of people with these degrees who have rewarding and often lucrative careers. Based on how you have come across in this thread, it hasn't worked for you.

A different government might (a very remote might) be willing to join the EU by that date. The EU would have zero interest in accepting them.

John, Phi and Overtone: the observations you have made are accurate. They also have the appearance of emotional, knee jerk reactions. You disappoint me. It seems clear to me - and Endy has provided a good example - that there will be some benefits of global warming. Noting those benefits does not mean any of the following: We don't believe in global warming We don't believe there are any significant negative effects We don't care that some people will lose out It simply means that we have noted the benefits and set them down alongside the problems. I always thought that kind of objective observation, rather than one sided emotional attacks, was what science was about.

Now, do you think that was because a) There were no war crimes committed by Allied forces? b) As the victors, the Allies got to define what constituted a war crime? c) Standards were different then? To take a single example: are you arguing that the fire bombing of Dresden was justified?

1. You appear to be interested in advertising your site. I suspect you are not interested in a discussion. 2. We do not all "know it is going to happen one day". Some of us can distinguish between fiction and fact. 3. In the link it is stated, of the Yuri Milner program, "The intent is to find intelligent life in the universe - but you can guarantee that's not the only discovery that will be made." Are you willing to guarantee this? How much will you pay me if no discoveries are made after the ten year program ends? 4. Stephen Hawking is described as the "Author of The Theory of Everything & A Brief History In Time" At least that tells us which demographic you are aiming at. 5. Fascinating that the site uses a discussion of soil erosion to promote a "how to be an entrepreneur" scheme. At this point I decided to watch Toy Story II. I like my fantasy to accompanied by ethics.

What makes you think the ability to detect infrared is made possible by a single gene. I cannot conceive how that would be possible - granted I am rather slow on the uptake, so I may be missing something. However, I strongly suspect that several genes are responsible for the ability and - as Endy has pointed out - deliver this ability through a distinct organ.

When it come to faecal retention, I honestly don't give a sh**.

On the contrary. He did not so much admit his ignorance as revel in it and celebrate it. He dismissed out of hand the the "official" view. That view was not dreamed up for a laugh, but was the consequence of the careful consideration of many pieces of evidence and deep thinking by brilliant minds. Yet Gater felt it perfectly fine to dismiss all of this because it made no sense to him. When the foolishness of this position was pointed out to him he dismissed it again. At the risk of being reprimanded by staff it seems to me that that action is profoundly stupid. (Please feel free to report this post.) It is probably a character defect in me, but I can feel only contempt for someone who elects to behave in such a dumb manner. What would have had me applauding Gater would be if he had said "Wow, I wasn't aware of any of these ideas about the geometry of space and the arguments for and against a finite, or infinite universe. I sure have a lot to learn. Fascinating!" He would have recognised his ignorance and be preparing to learn. That is not how he behaved. It is his behaviour I am condemning.

I think your comment should remain. As a matter of principle, on all forums, I am opposed to editing posts other than for clarity, or typographical/grammatical errors. It is a common belief that Wegner was ridiculed for his theory. I have little doubt that some individuals did ridicule him1. What I was challenging was the myth, implicit in your post, that this was more or less an across-the-board, no-exceptions, ridicule. It is precisely because I recognise that you would have neither the time, nor the inclination to investigate the claim thoroughly (a perfectly valid position) that I made the correction. 1. Completely off topic, I love the remark of the English comedian Bob Monkhouse: "They laughed when I said I wanted to be a stand-up comedian. They're not laughing now."

I shall differ somewhat from Strange in response to this. If, I repeat if, the scientist did indeed say this, it is highly probable that they did so with an extensive knowledge of the arguments for and against an infinite universe, and the skill set to evaluate these arguments and their evidence in great detail. Their conclusion would be provisional and clearly based on a thorough examination of the facts. While one might personally doubt their conclusion, one would respect the means by which it had been reached. Disagreement with that conclusion would rightly focus on how particular evidence had been interpreted, or the weight given to different aspects. On the other hand Gater readily admitted he was wholly ignorant of any of the arguments for an infinite universe, or any of the evidence on which these arguments were based. Also, by his own admission, he lacks the mathematical skills to properly assess those arguments or evidence. Worse still, when these deficiencies are pointed out to him he rejects them as being irrelevant and suggests those who think this way are foolish. A position such as that is deserving of pity, but not respect.

It seems you don't know whether you are coming or going.

I don't see why your post merited a negative rep. I have counteracted it.