Zombie

Maybe a bit off topic but an interesting point worth looking at so I've done a blog on Colonisation https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/blog/504/entry-13492-colonisation/

Ghostboy posted a comment in "Gorilla Glass" "There is nothing that can be imagined that can't be accomplished. It might take a long time for some things to reach the point of viability, but it will happen. The only thing that worries me is there might not be enough time to do it all. One of the things that we seem to be failing at is maintaining the planet we depend on for survival. The big idea in that respect seems to be figuring out how to colonize other planets in time to save a few humans before the earth becomes unlivable. It's no fun imagining the earth as a big cemetery. Maybe, if people can pay attention long enough, we can still save our home. It's a thought. It's a dream. I hope it's a dream that comes true. " As Ghostboy says, Earth is our home in the Solar System. If we fuck it up then we do likewise to ourselves as a species. But what does this mean? People use phrases like "we're wrecking the planet". Well, no we're not. Earth will still be around. What we are doing is changing the incredibly complex and interconnected systems - which we do not fully understand either individually, or how they interact with each other - that enable us to sustain our existence on this ball of rock. So when we change these systems, for example by making species go extinct by destroying their habitats, or by emitting halon gases into the atmosphere, we risk changing the physical and biological environment that is necessary for us to survive and prosper as a species. Earth has seen millions of species go extinct through no fault of their own - and we are no different. Except we could also be the first species to go extinct because of our own fault Ghostboy raises an idea that some people hold that it's not so bad if we fuck up on Earth. If that happens - and some don't seem to care or be bothered - we just move somewhere else. What they probably mean is "we the privileged and very wealthy" can escape somewhere else. Sorry to disillusion you, guys, but "we're all in it together". Yes, that includes you, the privileged rich and wealthy. There is no "escape" option, for several reasons. First, despite Elon Musk's ridiculous announcements, we are not going to other planets any time soon. We are still in the stone age as far as space travel goes, using the technology of Nazi Germany. Second, if we can't even manage our own planet's environment why would we be any better trying to manage another planet's environment? Never mind successfully achieving the "terraforming" beloved by sci-fi story writers. Finally, even if we could overcome all those obstacles there's one we can't overcome, and that's gravity. Or rather lack or it. Gravity on the Moon is about one sixth Earth's, and on Mars it's about one third. Human bodies are not designed to live in low gravity, our bones dissolve and we would be literally crippled. Creating and maintaining gravity equal to the Earth's can only be done in one place - and that's here on Earth The only possible alternative planet in terms of gravity is Venus. And if you think global warming on Earth is a problem, turn your telescope to the lead-melting cauldron of Venus So there is no alternative. We have to understand our physical and biological planetary environment mechanisms much better than we do, and we have to change our collective attitude to what we do on Earth and how we treat it. Ghostboy is right - Earth is our home, and you don't shit all over your own home. Not if you want to be able to keep on living there.

Reading John Logie Baird's autobiography

Pre-WW2 Television This television - a 1936 Marconiphone - is claimed to be the oldest working electronic TV set in the world. It was bought in London at a cost of £100 - the price of a small car then. The BBC started its regular TV service in November 1936, the first in the world. The cathode ray tube and 70% of the electronics are original, the replacements are original spec and it was sold to only its third owner in 2011 for £16,800. The reason the screen is at the top and watched through a mirror is because the CRT is enormous and extends all the way to the cabinet base. Obviously the electron beam has to scan backwards to display the image correctly in the mirror. The BBC started its TV service in October 1936 as a trial between two competing formats - John Logie Baird's 240 line mechanical TV system, and EMI's 405 line electronic CRT system. In January 1937 the EMI system was declared the winner and adopted by the BBC so all those who'd bought Baird sets were left high and dry. Baird was devastated, but continued to develop his technology: [1940 photo of Baird's hybrid mechanical colour TV image] During WW2 Baird was using an electronic system and by 1944 had developed and demonstrated the world's first high definition 3D TV and "telechrome" colour TV at up to 1000 lines - "true HD". Baird tried to get his technology adopted for when TV resumed after the war but sadly, perhaps because of Baird's history with a failed mechanical system and a lack of interest in TV development, his advanced modern system was not taken up and Britain retained the 1936 black and white 405 lines TV system until the 1960s

There is a profound difference, though, between simply being bigoted in whatever unpleasant beliefs are held, and rabble rousing hate. The Bible Belt and radical Islam are frighteningly similar in their hate mongering. In my view "free speech" stops at the door of rabble rousing that is intended to incite societal hatred of any group within that society. The lessons of history should not have to be learned all over again.

I posted a thread a few weeks ago with the transcript of a BBC radio doc discussing the issues around transgenderism and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/36732-male-female-who-decides/ So you need to read up on the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which, according to one contributor "is the state of the art Act in relation to this anywhere in the world". Based on what was said in the programme the minimum age in the UK for medical intervention was 12 in 2011: "Just under two years ago, approval was given in the UK to hormone blockers so that gender dysphoric 12 year olds can stop their bodies developing. At the age of 16, they can choose to start taking cross-sex hormones, and at 18, can have surgery. Last year, just over 200 children were referred for medical help ..." So for a nine year old in 2000, 2004 or 2013 the answer seems to be no. Bear in mind that, as one contributor points out: "Many children who present as transgender end up identifying as either lesbian or gay in later life and no longer identify as transgender. Definitely had I been taken to a psychiatrist when I was you know in my early teens and was being bullied because of living outside of gender rules, I may well have been given a diagnosis of being transgender and I could be sitting here talking to you as a male. So I think hormone blockers for children are a dreadful idea." Maybe the transcript will give you some other story plot line ideas from the points raised

Er ... well this is a contractual dispute, possible fraud ... or both

Gotit! The solution to procrastination

Here's a useful wiki page covering all the above ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter No reason to be a closet geek - be out and proud!

Dunno what it is but it sounds good so well done

I was only referring to "everyday matter" But you're right, all the interesting stuff seems to be in the transitional phases

Hi, I'm Zombie and I like fishes Ooops forgot - welcome to GA

As I understand it - and I'm not a scientist - everyday matter can exist in three states: solid, liquid, gas [also plasma in special conditions]. The transition between these is an important area of science and the terms fluidity and viscosity - which have opposite meaning - describe the resistance to flow at the molecular level due to internal friction, which varies between materials and according to temperature. So water is a liquid form of solid ice and water vapour gas, glass is a solid which flows at high temperatures but not at room temperature, and pitch does flow at room temperature but very very slowly In the real world - in other words outside of a lab - everything has some viscosity, which is measured in units called "poises". The links I gave probably answer your questions but if you really really want more geeky stuff plus some nice complicated equations then here's another specially for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity

Hey, don't be a meanie I just like the idea of a slow motion drop being matched with a slow motion splat - maybe those other drops will deform in time to become splats, and maybe that'll be Part 2 of the experiment Interesting it's commonly believed that glass also flows - over centuries - as a "supercooled liquid", but it seems this is yet another urban myth http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html http://www.cmog.org/article/does-glass-flow

Tension is mounting in the world of science as the next drop in the 86 year old Pitch Drop Experiment prepares to ... drop. This will be the first drop to drop since ... er ... well since the last one dropped in November 2000 Scientists are reaching orgasmic states of excitement as they eagerly anticipate the moment when the sticky tendril holding the ninth drop suddenly SNAPS! and the oily drop SPLATS! Here's a pic of one of those scientists "on the edge" as he gapes in wonder and struggles to contain his excitement And here's a live video link so you too can watch this momentous happening - as it happens! http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment

S.S. United States I'd forgotten about this ship. I assumed she'd gone to the great scrapyard in the sky like all the other historic liners. But no, she still exists. When she was launched in 1952 she was impressive, powerful, streamlined, and beautiful with her sleek profile and distinctive funnels, and modern interior. The designer was obsessed with fire safety so no wood was used. He even insisted Steinway supply aluminium cased pianos as on the Hindenberg - until they demonstrated there was no fire risk by dousing a piano in petrol and trying unsuccessfully to set it alight On her maiden voyage she smashed the transatlantic record by over 10 hours, with an average speed of 35 knots - 41 mph / 66 kph - claiming the Blue Riband which she holds to this day - in both directions. Officially the ship had a maximum speed of 38 knots - which for landlubbers means 44 mph / 71 kph But the ship had a dual role. During WW2 Britain's ocean liners, RMS Queen Mary and Elizabeth, regularly crossed the Atlantic with up to 15,000 troops, alone without any escort - they travelled so fast it meant they could outrun anything, including torpedoes. Those troop movements were a key factor in the outcome of the war. This must have impressed the US government so the SS United States was commissioned in 1949 with specifications for a military role - extensive use of aluminium, four screws each powered by a high performance steam turbine, width to enable transit through the Panama Canal, and conversion in one day to a military troop ship, she could deliver 15,000 servicemen anywhere in the world in less than 10 days. Remember this was a time of fear and uncertainty and military air transport capable of moving tens of thousands of troops quickly simply did not exist. It has been claimed that this ocean liner was in fact capable of moving at 44 knots - 50 mph / 80 kph. She is the fastest object of this size ever built, and with a non-stop range of over 10,000 miles. But her military specification meant she was expensive to operate - she needed 10,000 gallons of fuel an hour - so with the arrival of fast jet transport which made her military role redundant, and rising oil costs which meant she was commercially uneconomic, she was doomed and her final voyage was in November 1969.. Sadly, since 1996 the ship has been docked at Pier 54 on the Delaware River in Philadelphia as a rusting hulk. Many plans have been proposed to preserve and renovate her for future commercial use, like the Queen Mary, but none has worked out. Unless a viable plan comes forward soon the ship will be broken up. This ship is an important artifact. I hope a new use can be found for her and that she can be saved and restored to the magnificent appearance she once had for future generations to enjoy. Hey, in Britain we go nuts about old steam railways and these days they make good money

The six passengers can enjoy swimming around in each others vomit during the six minutes of weightlessness ...

"Printing money" seems to be accepted as a more honest term - even if not literally correct - than "quantitative easing" which is typical of the mangled language that economists love I take your point that it's the BoE that does the "printing" but surely the whole purpose of QE is to free up cash to be available, and if it's not getting into the lending system what's the point? And I'm not convinced the BoE is in reality so separated from govt policy. Even Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph writes "The policy is presented as the Bank’s. Since 1997, we have learnt to believe we have an independent Bank of England. Gilt markets would take fright if they thought Britain had gone back on this. So Quantitative Easing, which sounds obscurely scatological, is passed off as an inside-the-trade matter from which we, the public, can avert our eyes. Yet QE helps entwine the Bank with the Government. Monetary policy has taken over much of the role usually assigned to fiscal policy. The Governor, reluctantly, is playing an unprecedentedly important role in how we run the country. The Chancellor is trying to keep the Bank looking independent while covertly trying to ensure that it implements his wishes. Since QE was introduced, the Bank has offered several different explanations for what it does, and the Government has tried not to talk about it. We haven’t had such an unmentionable policy since shadowing the Deutschmark in the late 1980s. Only now, pressed by the bright new MP Andrea Leadsom, has the Commons Treasury Select Committee said it will let some daylight in upon the magic." See - smoke and mirrors! A problem with the closure of so much public sector employment is we don't know what the cost savings will be, nor where the privatisation money will go - the split between new employees in the "new jobs", shareholders [foreign companies?] and the fat cats creaming off as per Ashi's comments. And so many of the "new jobs" in the private sector are around minimum wage, part time and with pitiful pensions - this impacts the economy if people in these jobs will need supplementary benefit and will need pension support because they can't afford to top up their miserable private sector pension plans. Cameron bangs on about us "all being in this together". Frankly that's a lie - we've seen executive pay continue to rocket even during this recession, while pay for ordinary folks has been slashed. This has to be addressed and corrected. As for manufacturing not being "a necessary part of the economy", I must say I have a problem with that view. Fact is manufactured things is what we spend our money on, whether it's Apple's latest iGadget, or a nuclear power station. If we're not making those things or exporting equivalent then our collective wealth is flowing out of the UK economy and into the coffers of other nations' economies. So if we're not making any of the things we buy as consumers then we have to have a highly educated workforce with high level intellectual skills to sell their brain talents to foreign buyers. That's not happened on anything like the scale needed and there's no sign of it happening anytime soon for the 30-40 million plus working age population. While we've failed to build a sufficiently educated workforce skilled in delivering high level services - and I'm not talking Call Centres - Germany has continued to develop an important manufacturing base to its economy. We all want their cars, washing machines and fridges. It's a pity Thatcher steered our economy with such singleminded determination to "services" without delivering the educational outcomes for a service economy ever to have been sustainable, and discounted - some will say undermined - the possibility of following Germany's example of making quality stuff the world wants to buy.

It's called being human. We all do it. Sometimes intentionally, often carelessly or unthinking. The important thing is learning how to say sorry and being honest about how you really feel. If you want to keep a friend that is.

I don't know how it works in the US, Ashi, but in the UK the govt prints the money and hands it over to the Bank of England. The BoE then provides this money to the big five clearing banks at - currently - the lowest interest rates we've ever seen so those banks can then lend that money to businesses, at attractively low rates - with a reasonable "turn" based on properly assessed risk. Couple of points, banks seem to have lost the skill of how to properly understand their business customers and appropriately assess their customers' individual business risk so that business can get the money they need to invest and grow the economy. Instead, what they are doing is offering extortionate rates despite historic record low rates from the BoE and not properly assessing individual risk - so businesses say "no thanks" and scrap their investment plans - or refusing to lend at all. Worse, the govt has now decided to get involved with underwriting risk to get lending kickstarted .... but ... they've decided to underwrite risk in the mortgage market not business lending. This is absolutely crazy. All it's going to do is fuel house price inflation [and maybe stimulate the building trade], saddle the taxpayer with yet more mortgage risk - as if we haven't got enough already - and produce illusory growth based on increasing property prices ... one of the causes of the mess we're now in! Meanwhile manufacturing remains the economy's Cinderella, when it should be the engine room *oops, mixing metaphors again * As for banks just lending to each other ... well that doesn't help anyone, except the banks themselves. We used to have a network of small regional banks who took deposits from their local community and lent out to their local community - but they were all gobbled up by the big banks in the 80s and 90s. Imho we need to bring back those small regional banks because they did what banking is supposed to do - and they are not too big to fail. And I agree with you on QE - this is a chicken that will surely come home to roost as inflation where the govt - the biggest borrower - wins, and the ordinary guy gets stuffed. Never mind the lessons of history re hyper inflation As for the role of govt to create jobs, a big problem as you rightly say is the huge growth in the disparity between rich and poor - fact is a good chunk of the jobs now available are around minimum wage, which is not enough to live decently or raise a family. Henry Ford understood the need to pay his workers a living wage because he wanted them to be his customers too so he would sell more cars - which meant his workers needed to earn enough to be able to afford to buy his cars. That meant everyone was a winner. But the big corporations are now run by greedy men - and it is still almost exclusively men - who believe they are entitled to gobble bigger and bigger slices of the cake for themselves, which means there is less for everyone else. They have become the modern robber barons. Podga makes a good point about microfinance but this, and "crowd funding" are probably really only viable for start ups and raising relatively small amounts of investment.

I gave up long ago taking seriously - if I ever did - the posturing by economists that they truly understand how economies work and what actions really need to be taken to deliver a healthy and sustainable economy. Because it seems to me they're charlatans, the proverbial snake oil salesmen peddling their own patent remedies under the guise of "wisdom and knowledge", when the reality is that modern economies are underpinned by smoke and mirrors - the illusion of wealth that is "money". British banknotes state “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of [the note's value]" signed by the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England. But these are just promisory notes, and the promise is worthless. Right at the centre are the shareholder owned banks - the middle men given control of all this worthless money that the government prints but which drives the smoke machines and the rotating mirrors. The claim is that banks lend to business, that generates wealth, and we all get richer as a result. But they're not doing this. Despite the astonishingly low rates of interest we have apparently had now for more than five years, banks are not lending to business, or if they are it is on such unfavourable terms - personal guarantees by business owners against their own property, or at usurious rates of interest, or both - as to be unacceptable and therefore irrelevant. So what is the point of banks if they're not lending to business? They dumped business banking years ago, and kicked out traditional "bank managers" who knew and understood their local businesses and had authority to lend to them, in favour of the low hanging fruit of mortgage lending and the easy pickings of speculating depositors money in the casino banking frenzy that enabled those at the controls of the banks to "enrich themselves beyond avarice". Problem is the banks now don't know what to do. They're been compelled to "de-risk" their activities which means holding more capital, and they lost the skills of business banking when they kicked out their highly knowledgeable business bankers. Figures released today show the UK economy grew by 0.3% over the last quarter. That's pathetic. And the reality is that "growth" occurred in the service sector while manufacturing continued to shrink. Surely if the government creates the money by just printing it they should now cut out the middle man - the banks - and start lending directly to business to get the economy moving. Or at the very least create a state owned Business Bank to challenge and compete with the private banks, to provide an alternative to the current system so that businesses can get the money they need. Because the current banking system is by any measure discredited, broken and not fit for purpose. But, hey, what do I know - I'm not an economist

A German concentration camp for Jews? If you want to write a true life horror story then fine. But as a setting for an entertaining read? Or an erotic read? Sorry, I can't see this being respectful, tasteful, credible or appropriate.

One Mile Away This article a few weeks ago in the Daily Telegraph about two black gang leaders in Birmingham realising the stupidity of it all, coming to terms with each other and then becoming mentors for young black guys - all thanks to a courageous documentary film maker, Penny Woolcock, whose film One Mile Away [just released] charts what happens after the two rival gang members – Matthias 'Shabba’ Thompson, 33, from the Johnsons and Dylan Duffus, 31, from the Burger Bar Boys – take the decision to call a truce and campaign for peace. It really uplifted my spirits when I read it. Maybe it will last, maybe it won't. But if two hardened gang enemies can call a truce then so can others. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9918593/One-Mile-Away-Birmingham-gangs-give-peace-a-chance.html

Thanks iSimba

Good advice. The other concern is just how secure are smart phones - there's a whole security industry out there feeding off PC and laptop users. What about viruses, worms, spyware and all the other crap - are phones at risk and, if so, what should be done?