assassin_696

Yay :D

At the moment, Sorrow - Pink Floyd. Generally, Layla [Live] - Eric Clapton

Rodrigo y Gabriela - Tamacun

Problem with nuclear Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them? It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem You could bury the waste. It's not as stupid as it sounds, there's lots of potential space underground in tectonically stable areas. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a lot better than just dumping coal on a fire.

Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

Go on Hamilton! :D

LK, yeah I see your point. I'm going through those teenage years where you question everything around you and challenge society for the hell of it. :P I suppose my experience with drugs has been very tame and limited. I haven't lost any friends to drugs (thankfully) but I have seen some people at my school change completely because of weed of all things, that supposedly harmless drug. I guess we all just take the risks and hope we aren't the ones who they make documentaries about later. It's stupid, really. I think the general consensus though is that you don't touch solvents. I know a lot of teenagers do, but they really are incredibly dangerous. I do have parents who have jobs that mean they end up dealing with the effects of drug use though, they see the harder ends of it, they deal with the true addicts, and the true crime that results from it. What I was trying to say though was that to say that all drugs are pure evil was a bit unfair. I tried to think about all the music that has been 'inspired' by drugs. But then, that's probably a bit like keeping an incredibly dangerous dog in the house with your children because a few people admire it when you take it out for a walk. I was speaking out of my [wagon] really pretending to know about hard drugs and their effects. A few months ago I was all for doing everything we could as a society to remove drugs entirely, to prosecute people to the full extent of the law for drug use (however minor) and to get them off our streets. I've since realised that that would be an impossible task, the UK doesn't have anywhere near the resources. So, since the current situation isn't really working, I thought about the opposite extreme. Legalising all drugs but controlling their use to the full extent of the law. I don't know which is better. An interesting point to note however, is that in the 1920's America passed the Prohibition Act as you probably know. Not only did this lead to bootleg alchohol, but the rise of the speakeasies, the gangsters like Al Capone, the protection rackets and gang murders and control. When the prohibtion act was dropped in the '30's, the gangs largely disappeared. Whether or not this was due to the depression or the act I don't know. Drugs are in our society, whether we like it or not, and it will probably take more resources than we have to remove them from our society. But maybe if we tried to legislate drug use, we might not be able to control the addiction, but the organised crime might disappear. Just a thought, and a largely uneducated one on the matter.

Red Light (Spells Danger) - Billy Ocean In honour of the Top Gear version on Comic Relief on Friday. :D

I don't think that's a fair comparison - having one drink has far less of an affect on you relative to having one . Although that's true, the greater effect doesn't necessarily mean that it's more dangerous if the effects themselves are made clear, and obviously doing things like driving is forbidden.

Lucky Number Slevin?

Ah, I went to loads of those things when all my school year turned 13, they were all great fun. Did you have trays of whiskey shots at yours? They were the best, honestly I don't know what I was thinking drinking that much at that time of the day.

you absolute [developmentally delayed] you do know the atoms are physics, not chemistry. Also, as other people have mentioned; use an electron microscope. Oi, you. Before you start calling people such derrogatory terms make sure that you're talking from a position of authority and knowledge of your subject. If you're foolish enough to think that atoms and electrons have no place in chemistry, when in fact the arrangement of electrons around an atomic nucleus is responsible for all of chemistry, then that's your problem. But don't try and act superior about it.

Speaking of Bill Hicks... It's probably a slight generalisation, but a good point nonetheless. You see, i'm not saying drugs are good, but they're not necessarily bad. There are lots of drugs out there, not just illegal ones, and I believe that they all have some place in society in one way or another. Again, i'm not denying that the illegal drugs trade is a terrible thing, it fuels so many problems in our society it's hard to know where to start. But as a teenager, i'm getting sick of being told about the evils of drugs. Because, the thing is, I look around society and I see smokers, and drinkers, doing it perfectly within the law, but still causing problems. Smoking, it's addictive, it kills more than most hard drugs but it's perfectly legal. Is there a multi-billion crime industry associated with cigarrettes? No, not to the extent of the illegal ones. Alchohol, it kills more than any other drug, yet it's something nearly everyone's drunk at some point in their life. Alchoholism can lead to so many problems, it's as serious as any drug addiction in my mind, it breaks up families, leads to depression and suicide yet the cause is legal. Because for every problematic alcoholic there are probably 20 perfectly sensible drinkers who enjoy a drink now and again, but don't let it control their lives. I've had experience with drugs myself, directly and indirectly, and I know that for every mentally disturbed weed smoker that's paraded around the headlines there are plenty more who are perfectly happy fuelling what's a rather expensive, and illegal habit, but's nonetheless harmless to them. I don't know what society would be like if all drugs were legalised. I really don't, but I'm guessing that a lot of the crime and illegal trade associated with it would collapse if prices were regulated. Yes, you'll still get addicts, in the same way that you'll get gambling, smoking, drinking and food addicts, all doing just as much damage to themselves.

http://www.nch.com.au/switch/ There's a free trial, it's good, use it.

Buy some proper ones, the iPod earbuds are cheap and nasty anyway, the sound qualities poor. Your ears will appreciate you running along to the even louder bass beats of Dizzy Tissue, or whatever you crazy kids listen to these days.

Well, it's that time again. Details of festivals this summer and spring are being released and tickets are going on sale. Which (if any) are you going to this year? I think i'm going to go to the O2 Wireless Festival, it was pretty good last year and it's the weekend my GCSE's finish. Might only go on Friday though The White Stripes are playing, they should be good. I might go to Leeds Fest, but tickets are really not that cheap, and I might be away for it anyway.

The Babyshambles - [Make love] Forever

BULL

Ditto, haven't read any of his policies but he's a good speaker, I like him. For any of you who've read Tom Clancy's Executive Orders, he most reminds me of Jack Ryan, and he's what I think a proper president should be.

Gosh, haven't used msn in ages.

Yeah, sorry i'd forgotten exactly what they called the things but I do remember a chemistry video a few years ago which showed individual atoms in not much detail. Couldn't remember it's name though. Electrons aren't in the atomic nucleus but they are a constitute of an atom.

Proof does not necessarily need to be visual. We didn't discover black holes by looking into the sky, they were a (controversial) solution to Einstein's equations discovered by theorists. We then knew what to look for so we could find them. At the moment, we can't see individual atoms in any detail (although they are semi-visible with ultra powerful electron microscopes). But the theory and concept of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons has stood up to every conceivable test that particle physics and chemistry can throw at it. Of course, it's never as simple as your chemistry teacher makes it, but the existance is pretty fundamental.

I'd tend to agree given certain circumstances i.e. living in the western world. The big post of mine on the first page goes over a few possible scenarios. Tell me what you think if you have a look. :anxious: Yeah, that's a very nice summary. I'd skimmed over it before but hadn't given it a proper look until now. I'd agree with pretty much all that you said. I phrased my question to my biology teacher I suppose in the context of the western world, in which you're right in saying natural selection has been removed for us. Of course in AIDS riddled Africa there is natural selection still taking place, with the resistant few surviving and passing on their genes, but if our medicine spreads to there, even though there might not yet be a cure, they will survive long enough to pass on their non resistant genes. You're also right in saying that a natural disaster or dramatic change would then suddenly bring in natural selection again to an extent, for example a theoretical (god forbid) ebola pandemic in the western world. Artificial selection is an interesting concept as well, I suppose we will begin to cherry pick our genes in the future, despite the ethical implications, to choose traits that natural selection and primitive brain functions tell us symbolise a better human being. We'll see :

Wow, I split the spam and the topic is reduced to a page. Defender, stop being so bloody patronising, pretending you know what's good for us in your condescending tone. You don't like the way we do things? Then clear off, but don't spam up a perfectly good discussion.

What's wrong with him? :oops: