Humodour

Amen. Anyway, I'm going to move onto something far more interesting... ANTIMATTER! During the night my time, it was announced that the LHC has also contained antiatoms (specifically a few dozen antihydrogen atoms, maybe 38 or so) for the first time in human history. Now we all know how bad antimatter is, right? Dan Brown teaches us that it is violently powerful like a nuclear bomb and thus will surely wipe out half of Europe (or perhaps Earth itself!) if the LHC's electromagnetic containment field ever fails! Oh wait, what's that? The scientists deliberately released the containment field so the antimatter would hit the LHC's tunnel walls and annihilate matter? What rogues! And only a few specks of light were produced? Well don't I feel silly now! Sorry WoD, we'll have to stick to the black hole doomsday scenario until it is disproven in 2013 or so, 'cause the antimatter and big bang scenarios have proven quite anticlimactic (haha)! Then again, there's always the possibility we're in a false vacuum state so maybe the "risk" of a potential vacuum metastability event will inject some new life into the doomsday soothsaying (assuming you subscribe to Copenhagen rather than Everett and are able to pretend cosmic rays don't exist).

And what happens when we feel secure? Anxeity is removed. We can focus on other aspects of our lives. We feel happier. Money -> Security -> Happiness. Object away - it was not the core theme of my post, though. In fact, it was one line.

This thread is funny because it's like two parts of my mind arguing with eachother "dude, just list the games you enjoyed" then "But I enjoyed certain games for certain reasons and to list Red Faction or Morrowind alongside Planescape: Torment would almost be a crime! I need a list for unoriginal but immersive/atmospheric games, a list for artistic greats, a list for RPGs, a list for shooters..." response "whatever, you're over-analysing but do what you want"

I'd like to apologise to Wrath. It's as much the scientific comunnity's responsibility to be patient and explain science as it is a layman's responsibility to try and understand it. I've certainly failed at the being patient part.

If you're interested in playing a fun ROLE PLAYING GAME as well as a fun action game, Dungeon Siege 3 will be for you. If all you want is the action gameplay of the previous two, and then only want it in the same format as the original two, it might be worth waiting a decade or two for an indie developer to make that instead. Also, DS3 does have a party system. And classes. And some form of skill trees. Obsidian is trying to appeal to DS1+2 action fans while adding lots more of RPG elements to the game.

Yes.

Too bad there's no empirical evidence for this. And since you know so much about science, you should know that the derivation of the Hawkins radiation has already been proven to be incorrect. It's probably still true that the micro black holes are unstable, but there is a set of assumptions under which they would in fact be stable, and could grow slowly over time through collisions with other particles, until it reached enough mass to start attracting other particles, at which point it would rapidly grow and consume earth. As far as collisions in upper atmosphere, they don't prove anything, as any black holes formed would move through the earth at near the speed of light, and thus wouldn't have a chance to grow to a dangerous size. The LHC apologia has already moved on to claim that since white dwarves don't get destroyed by cosmic ray collisions, the earth won't either. Would you just sit back and admit you don't have the foggiest idea how maths or science work, just once? No? Didn't think so. Carry on pushing your anti-science agenda, then. *sigh* Edit: There are some completely implausible doomsday scenarios about the LHC which, in their very raw form, actually have some sort of scientific foundation. Black holes consuming the Earth has never been one of these. Read Zoraptor's post (of which the only issue I have is that he references singularities as physical phenomena and not byproducts of our misunderstanding of physics).

Exactly! Interesting question. The answer must necessarily (to my mind) be that the services industries create wealth by increasing productivity in the manufacturing and commodities industries (can generate wealth faster) and value-adding to the manufacturing and commodities industries (e.g. a restaurant turns raw food into appealing food dishes - clearly the product has been enhanced beyond the original ingredients, is now worth more, and thus 'wealth' has been created.) Or e.g. a programmer turns 1's and 0's into a useful tool - in this instance the commodity being enhanced is knowledge/time/effort, and the product and the product is only likely to generate wealth if it increases productivity. Although we must remember that things like entertainment/games also increase productivity indirectly by decreasing stress. I guess a lot of economic growth is illusory, too, right? It's called inflation - so a lot of economics probably IS just about moving wealth around. And even ignoring inflation, you've still got economic growth produced simply by more humans being born (and thus producing wealth... although this is real economic growth or wealth creation, it is also mitigated somewhat by the increased demand/strain this extra individual places on society). And further to that, as long as economic growth per capita after inflation is not negative, frankly I don't see a problem with wealth not being created by the things we do - we're reaching a stage in human society where we need to start lying back and enjoying the fruits of our labour, because what the heck is the point of it otherwise? Money fundamentally exists to make us happy - this is the basic reason capitalism is a force for good in the world. Money for money's sake is pointless. That goes for money in all its forms - wealth, gold, investments like shares, whatever.

But do they? Some of the most productive peopel I've ever met have been barely high school educated, and work with little more than hand tools. And some of the biggest wasters have been fully tech enabled PhDs. And some rapists are teachers. Enough anecdotal evidence - a few data points don't make a trend. I believe strongly in the point Atreides made. And Morgoth: Incorrect. Jobs are not a zero-sum game, because you can always move into the knowledge economy (research and development, and the related services industries that pop up around these, such as information technology - which is itself a gargantuan with few limits on growth in sight). Your statement might be true for the commodities and manufacturing sectors, but frankly I think that's a good thing because it means more people getting jobs that use their brains rather than their hands (not that I dislike manual labour, but you can't deny the superior benefits of a job that engages your mind).

I heard something about this being in development. Anybody have more details?

Very. Trains are cheap and so are airplanes (if you book them ahead of time). Check out Ryan air for flights out of UK or Norwegian if you are thinking about Scandinavia. Very inclined to take a train. Airplanes are so expensive. I'm keen on seeing all of Europe, but particularly: Scotland/UK in general, Poland/Czech, Germany/Netherlands, Portugal/Spain, France/Italy. I've paired them like that because each pair has a distinct 'flavour' of culture which I would like to experience but wouldn't have time to visit all 8 countries so might choose one from each. That may sound laughably naive to a European.

Yeah I'm thinking more like a month or more. It really depends on how strict travel is between Aus and UK and then from the UK to Europe. And money... although a weak Pound helps, the return flight there is probably going to be ungodly expensive like $2000.

You just reminded me to fill out my super forms. Thanks! Arrg I hope this means I haven't lost the 9% contribution for the past few months.

Anybody have any advice/tips for an Aussie wishing to visit the UK? Looking for any information at this point - where to visit, what to do, cost, what an Aussie has to do (when I visited New Zealand I just booked my flight and then hopped on the plane a few months later - same thing for England?) Everything is very tentative at this point so I'm not even sure how long I'd be staying, but I'd say at least 2 weeks - I think I'd prefer a longer though. Wouldn't mind visiting the rest of Europe while I'm there considering the proximity - how viable is that?

Your first question is covered by my statement "They didn't even replace it with an alternative" - the government certainly hasn't announced anything and if it does have a new disease centre up its sleeve this is a PR disaster. Your second question was covered by the article, where the contributions of the current system were highlighted - especially things like Hendra, SARS and Swine flu (the first main Swine flu wave hit the southern hemisphere first, particularly Aus, before the northern hemisphere due to our opposite seasons, for example). Maybe something like this isn't strictly 'necessary'. Maybe we could borrow research from other countries. But if we did that we'd be giving up part of our heritage as a bastion of scientific output. And if we did that, who would study things like the Dengue fever, Hendra, SARS, and Swine flu outbreaks? Australia has its own very unique set of environmental conditions which other countries and research centres overseas are unlikely to study in a manner that considers this. It does not sit well with me at all. I wouldn't mind if this function was simply transferred to the CSIRO, but has that happened? No. I think this bit is especially poignant: So if anything we should be increasing the centre's funding!

A black hole will eventually explode in a gamma ray burst due to constantly leaking Hawking Radiation. The smaller the black hole, the faster it does this. Black holes the size of a few particles would evaporate rapidly.

I just realised I am focusing on the global/China part of your original question, Rosbjerg. I guess that's because I'm more informed about global issues than European ones. I would love to hear more about how Europe (and Japan and China) are tackling the aging population problem because it is one Australia will soon face. As to the state of heightened xenophobia currently embracing Europe - well I think you can attribute that almost completely to the current financial conditions. It was predicted at the start of the crash, and it should subside once economies start to recover, no?

True, but China, India and Brazil are the only ones I think are going to make a big difference (as it seems right now). But I would not prefer India as a superpower over China - Brazil would be interesting though. Russia also seems to be heading into some kind of authoritarian dictatorship.. that might be good for business though? Russia will be part of a system of important counter-balances to China, dictatorship or not. As will all those countries I mentioned. You're focusing on the power of any one country to make a difference on its own when we're living in an increasingly connected, global, and multi-lateral world. Just look at the coordinated Asia-Pacific response this year to China's recent aggressive moves in the South China Sea and Asia more generally - you had countries spanning the whole gamut working together in concert to slap China down - America, Vietnam, Australia, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand... from memory. Even China has a strong role to play in this new multilateral order, but my entire argument is that it will find it increasingly difficult to do anything unilaterally which harms another state, whether directly or indirectly. Why do you distrust India, btw? The picture of India in Australia and America is rather rosy (and I would say with good reason). For us? I don't it ever will and we can't imagine a life without freedom - but the average Chinese and Indian doesn't think like us. China, maybe - let's wait and see, but my optimism leads me to disagree. I definitely disagree about India - they're the biggest democracy in the world and they're very proud of their democratic tradition. You could probably say they're a few decades behind the West on some civil rights issues but they're also free to debate those issues and change them (and are doing so). They have a vibrant free press, a massively multicultural society, and the Indians I know (which is actually a rather large number since they're one of the big migrant populations of Australia) are just as hedonistic (which I would use a measure of how much a society adores its freedom) as Australians. Another factor in India's favour is the growing empowerment of women - a key indicator of future economic and social prosperity in any society.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-natio...1114-17sey.html How could a government be so obviously stupid? Honestly - this isn't even a partisan issue. It's not even an expensive programme - a few million dollars. Pocket change for a government flush with cash in an economy booming along at an insane pace with a projected public budget surplus by 2014-15. It just baffles me. They didn't even replace it with an alternative, just brushed it under the carpet hoping nobody would notice the funding lapse. Moronic Labour government.

I would prefer the Nobel peace prizes existed as a force for good in the world (as is its intended purpose) - e.g. to rally support for human rights and democracy in China (whose instability is the biggest threat to peace in the next few decades), rather than exist to 'beatify' somebody who is dead. So your accusation that the Nobel prizes are being used for 'political' purposes moves me none. Although I strongly take issue with your characterisation of human rights as a political issue - no, it's a human rights issue. Human rights are only a political issue insofar as certain violent political regimes like China disallow them. As long as we disagree on this point we'll continue to disagree about Liu being awarded the Peace Prize.

I guess, on the upside, being able to destroy satellites is a kind of 'electronic MAD', so one might hope that it would be yet another disincentive to go to war. My only fear is that Western civilians have a lot to lose from satellite loss, where Chinese civilians have far less to lose on average, so China could see the trade off in terms of fomenting political unrest domestically in Western countries as worthwhile during some theoretical war and just go ahead and take out the satellites anyway. This obviously becomes less of a concern as China becomes more developed (and hence reliant on technology).

The current American healthcare system is NOT UHC, and was never meant to be. Obama rightly wanted UHC, but the idiots on both sides in parliament had other ideas, so Obama had to go with this current crappy system (which, I might add, is still superior to what America had before - at least the regulations on insurance companies). UHC does not need to be single-payer at all, WoD (it largely is in Canada, it largely isn't in Australia). And might I just add it's good to see somebody like Enoch finally get fed up with the type of extremist bull**** espoused by Guard Dog and call him on it for once.

I'm 99% sure he was kidding around. We all know that the world will end in December of 2012 anyway. No, I wasn't entirely facetious. I think there is a non-negligible risk involved. Many conservatives believe this unfortunately. I guess you could put it down to a general fear of and ignorance of science.

I don't know about the 'Western front' but Australia is just dandy. In fact we're probably better now than before the GFC started. Quit hyping up China I say. They're one player among many including ALL the Western countries, then Indonesia, Brazil/South America in general, Russia, India... ESPECIALLY India - India tips the balance unequivocally. And you do realise that Europe is the world's single biggest economy? The EU is larger than America in both population and GDP! That's not something that fades quickly (especially with significant portions of Eastern Europe with lots of growth capacity left), and birth rates don't fall forever - it's an equillibrium system. And frankly, **** that Chinese attitude to work and study. What's the point of studying and working your life away if you rarely get to enjoy or experience it? How can liberty possibly become obselete?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...ok/geos/as.html