optical fibres are amorphous, and definitely not ductile. However they are used for miles of cable. You can bend them a few degrees, which is all you really need. I suppose a superconducting ceramic would be worse, but you could still get a significant bend over a kilometre. I think the main barrier is still temperature, I think I read the best we have so far is just above the boiling point of Nitrogen, ~80K
I don't know how much contact you have had with refugees
Two attempts at picking my pocket. Ah, so you have a fair and representative sample then? I don't suppose you could tell me how you knew their immigration status (whether that be legal or not).
Most paid a foreign truck driver to take them away from the conflict; they had no idea where they were going.
That's rubbish. A truck driver wouldn't take them any further than he needed to - every mile and every border is more cost and/or risk for him. Well let's reiterate this one more time, the right to seek asylum is protected under international law, so there is nothing illegal about driving a truck of asylum seekers to another country. Now if I was fleeing a country I would want to get as far away as possible. But that is beside the point; the truck driver maybe British or have other reasons for wanting to go to the UK himself. The impression you give is that you think the UK gets more than an average share of refugees. In fact in the UK we take a comparatively small number.
I especially think we have a duty to provide asylum to Iraqis or refugees from Afghanistan since we created a lot of the violence.
Right, everything was perfect there before. How dichotomous! Of course there is always a level of violence, but you don't think that we have increased that level? It seems very callous to create unrest and then take no responsibility for the mess you make.
And now that these asylum seekers (and I am referring to genuine refugees) are here, then we would be an irresponsible society if we provided no refuge.
Why? Just because they got away with it so far doesn't make their presence any less illegal. Their status is perfectly legal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee I hope you don't become a victim of this government and have to flee persecution...
I don't know how much contact you have had with refugees, but I personally know many Kosavan refugees. Most paid a foreign truck driver to take them away from the conflict; they had no idea where they were going. Now I suppose that there were maybe an unusually high number of trucks that were driven to the UK, but I also suppose they were also driven to other countries. This NIMBY kind of argument doesn't really hold water. I especially think we have a duty to provide asylum to Iraqis or refugees from Afghanistan since we created a lot of the violence. I'm pretty sure most Iraqi refugees fled to Jordan btw.
And now that these asylum seekers (and I am referring to genuine refugees) are here, then we would be an irresponsible society if we provided no refuge.
The majority of Asylum Seekers in the UK are just that; refugees from conflict seeking asylum. The UK media finds it very hard to separate illegal immigrants from asylum seekers (or maybe they just don't want to). The key difference is that you have to declare that you want Asylum as soon as you enter the country. Now I won't go on about how the immigration tribunal system is messed up and skewed by political agenda; but essentially the people getting deported are not the illegal workers, or economic migrants, but the people who have claimed asylum that need protection. The benefits those seeking asylum get by the way is only 70% of the basic living allowance an unemployed UK national would get, which is presumably the minimum you are meant to be able to live on. The biggest problem is that, as you mentioned, asylum seekers are not allowed to work; so from their point of view they have seeked refuge only to find themselves living in enforced poverty. Just allowing asylum applicants to work would alleviate some of the problems.
well to clarify, wouldn't it be a better use of his $ to save many lives at what must surely be a lower price than for cancer drugs, even if he funded development of infrastructure. Sinking wells is still relatively cheap for most charities to do, and lasts a relatively long time.
Isn't this the same guy who says that when they cure cancer, he'll buy enough of the cure to distribute it to everyone in the world for free? Am I being cynical, or is it much more glamorous for Mr. Gates to promise to distribute cancer medicine than it is for him to, well I don't know, provide drinking water for the worlds population right now?
actually Lewis' theology (not a theory), says that all humans know morality (whether that is socially/genetically conditioned or not), but we inherently fail to live up to our own standards. He says that if human's are immoral, then it is a lack of morals (rather than believing good is evil etc..), this deals with point 1.
I think point 2 misses the point; the theology is distinct from theories of social development, because it doesn't mind what the mechanism for development of those morals is.
Now your best argument against Lewis shouldn't be trying to discredit it with science, as the theology itself is fairly distinct from any scientific theory. We could find the earth sitting on a turtle and it wouldn't matter to the theology of Lewis.
The best objection to Lewis is that his theology is based on virtually nothing, and I don't think it really gets very much back. But the point I was trying to make was that the theology will remain consistent with itself even with a massive amount of scientific development.
The best (IMHO), self-contained theologies (I'm thinking of those like C.S. Lewis), can be reasoned by the human condition. i.e. Lewis' Moral Law. The fact that science has theories that can (and I use the word loosely) 'explain' cosmology, ancient history, and just about every physical phenomenon, doesn't hinder ultimate cause; furthermore it can't discredit these theologies.
It is also problematic to use science as an explanation because of radical theory change, and that ultimately science provides models that predict rather than give any ultimate truth. As scientists we know from experience that we shouldn't trust s.relativity, quantum theory or whatever, because we know that their predecessors are not true.
If you come at religion from this perspective you can see that we do not need a design argument for proof of God, and we don't need God to give us primary cause. In fact what I have come to believe is that you can't "believe in science" since there is no ingrained truth in science (science describes, does not explain); but if you do construct a theology convincing enough, it is valid to believe in a God.
Nostradamus is also cited as having many of his predictions come true. The problem is, if you make enough predictions it is hard for some of them not to come true. Similarly it is hard to miss shooting a rabbit with a sawn-off shotgun...
As always, everybody has to learn in some way or another. The real question is not whether the internet is a valid medium for discussion (it shouldn't matter), but whether these groups actually teach and guide or just give answers which helps nobody in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
optical fibres are amorphous, and definitely not ductile. However they are used for miles of cable. You can bend them a few degrees, which is all you really need. I suppose a superconducting ceramic would be worse, but you could still get a significant bend over a kilometre. I think the main barrier is still temperature, I think I read the best we have so far is just above the boiling point of Nitrogen, ~80K
The impression you give is that you think the UK gets more than an average share of refugees. In fact in the UK we take a comparatively small number. Right, everything was perfect there before. How dichotomous! Of course there is always a level of violence, but you don't think that we have increased that level? It seems very callous to create unrest and then take no responsibility for the mess you make. Why? Just because they got away with it so far doesn't make their presence any less illegal. Their status is perfectly legal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee
I hope you don't become a victim of this government and have to flee persecution...
I don't know how much contact you have had with refugees, but I personally know many Kosavan refugees. Most paid a foreign truck driver to take them away from the conflict; they had no idea where they were going. Now I suppose that there were maybe an unusually high number of trucks that were driven to the UK, but I also suppose they were also driven to other countries. This NIMBY kind of argument doesn't really hold water. I especially think we have a duty to provide asylum to Iraqis or refugees from Afghanistan since we created a lot of the violence. I'm pretty sure most Iraqi refugees fled to Jordan btw.
And now that these asylum seekers (and I am referring to genuine refugees) are here, then we would be an irresponsible society if we provided no refuge.
The majority of Asylum Seekers in the UK are just that; refugees from conflict seeking asylum. The UK media finds it very hard to separate illegal immigrants from asylum seekers (or maybe they just don't want to). The key difference is that you have to declare that you want Asylum as soon as you enter the country. Now I won't go on about how the immigration tribunal system is messed up and skewed by political agenda; but essentially the people getting deported are not the illegal workers, or economic migrants, but the people who have claimed asylum that need protection. The benefits those seeking asylum get by the way is only 70% of the basic living allowance an unemployed UK national would get, which is presumably the minimum you are meant to be able to live on.
The biggest problem is that, as you mentioned, asylum seekers are not allowed to work; so from their point of view they have seeked refuge only to find themselves living in enforced poverty. Just allowing asylum applicants to work would alleviate some of the problems.
actually the Swiss flag is a white cross on a red background. You would be thinking of the English flag...
well to clarify, wouldn't it be a better use of his $ to save many lives at what must surely be a lower price than for cancer drugs, even if he funded development of infrastructure. Sinking wells is still relatively cheap for most charities to do, and lasts a relatively long time.
actually Lewis' theology (not a theory), says that all humans know morality (whether that is socially/genetically conditioned or not), but we inherently fail to live up to our own standards. He says that if human's are immoral, then it is a lack of morals (rather than believing good is evil etc..), this deals with point 1. I think point 2 misses the point; the theology is distinct from theories of social development, because it doesn't mind what the mechanism for development of those morals is. Now your best argument against Lewis shouldn't be trying to discredit it with science, as the theology itself is fairly distinct from any scientific theory. We could find the earth sitting on a turtle and it wouldn't matter to the theology of Lewis. The best objection to Lewis is that his theology is based on virtually nothing, and I don't think it really gets very much back. But the point I was trying to make was that the theology will remain consistent with itself even with a massive amount of scientific development.
The best (IMHO), self-contained theologies (I'm thinking of those like C.S. Lewis), can be reasoned by the human condition. i.e. Lewis' Moral Law. The fact that science has theories that can (and I use the word loosely) 'explain' cosmology, ancient history, and just about every physical phenomenon, doesn't hinder ultimate cause; furthermore it can't discredit these theologies. It is also problematic to use science as an explanation because of radical theory change, and that ultimately science provides models that predict rather than give any ultimate truth. As scientists we know from experience that we shouldn't trust s.relativity, quantum theory or whatever, because we know that their predecessors are not true. If you come at religion from this perspective you can see that we do not need a design argument for proof of God, and we don't need God to give us primary cause. In fact what I have come to believe is that you can't "believe in science" since there is no ingrained truth in science (science describes, does not explain); but if you do construct a theology convincing enough, it is valid to believe in a God.
Nostradamus is also cited as having many of his predictions come true. The problem is, if you make enough predictions it is hard for some of them not to come true. Similarly it is hard to miss shooting a rabbit with a sawn-off shotgun...
As always, everybody has to learn in some way or another. The real question is not whether the internet is a valid medium for discussion (it shouldn't matter), but whether these groups actually teach and guide or just give answers which helps nobody in the long run.