Michael

Well why you expect the surface of the sun not to be stable on the timescale of minutes?

I have to say, the idea of a coronal loop staying mostly fixed for a mere 2 and a half minutes being somehow remarkable is kinda funny. I think it's great when people try and educate themselves about all kinds of things in their own time, especially science, but one can easily be lead astray by crazy talk I guess. Science is an intensely beautiful thing. The pursuit of knowledge and the discovery of the unknown has never been primarily about having an answer to everything, more trying to chip away at ignorance. That might sound the same, but the there is a subtle difference. I challenge anyone to point out a theory that didn't initially have some glaring holes, obvious contradictions or incompatibility with the world we know. Of course relativity, the standard model and quantum physics can't explain everything. Does this mean we should throw away all our theories because they are not adequate in explaining all of the universe? No. We merely let them compete to see what explains the universe most adequately. As for the supposed electric universe theory? There are multiple glaringly obvious problems with pretty much any incarnation of the theory i've seen, and ones that can be spotted by any undergraduate who knows even basic solar theory and electromagnetism. What on earth do you think would motivate someone to dedicate their lives to discovering new physics if it was all a big racket? There's no way they're getting paid even nearly enough for that to be even vaguely plausible.

Sounds interesting. Any idea what your thesis will be on? Literally no idea yet, though have to decide soon. Might stick with the solar and look at something related to coronal heating. Looking at parametric instabilities in coupled cavities this summer though, which might be fun.

Hello, I'm currently studying for a Masters in Theoretical Physics and Maths. Done quite a lot of solar theory but probably mainly interested in all things quantum. Sorry i'm late to the party

I was talking specifically about Japan. Chernobyl was a disaster many times worse than what we've seen at fukushima... There's also essentially zero chance it'll ever happen again.

Actually I do. There are two main isotopes that are worrying people at the moment in soil and milk etc The radiation levels found in milk and spinach were 7 times the safety limit Iodine 131's half life is 8 days Caesium 137 is a bit worse at 30 years, yes, but it's not believed to be the main component causing problems in the food. So in a few weeks pretty much all the iodine is gone, and given that the food safety limits are extremely conservative in the first place, i'm sure they'll be fine. Farmers are currently getting compensation for unsafe crops.

Fusion has pretty much none of the drawbacks that fission has. It would be pretty much 100% safe. That said, I don't have an inherent problem with fission. I think there are a lot of misconceptions about radiation risks and how bad Fukushima is. It was pretty much worse case scenario for one of the crappiest reactors still around, and while obviously some people have been affected and are sick, many orders of magnitude more where affected by the earthquake/tsunami...

Pretty Sure Tavish is neutral about the windfarm?

I very much still trust the lib dems, and have solid reasons for doing so. I trust them to be advocates of the core principles they hold, and believe they haven't really compromised on these. And yes, that includes tuition fees. Talking about not seeing lib dems in the street canvassing - everyone I canvassed with for the general election last year is back again this year. This is at uni though, I have personally never seen anyone canvas in Shetland (except for the Scottish Christian Party I think?)

Well I for one will be sticking Lib dem. I find it mind-boggling that everyone thinks they are some sort of dirty turncoats, and further people attributing their dislike of the national party to the regional party too. It makes me a little sad that society has so little interest or respect for *any* politicians these days.

Yeah gotta say I have no problem allowing someone to burn whatever book they want as long as they own it, but when the act is used to incite religious tension and hatred that's when I think there's a problem. The media will cover what the media covers, i'm just glad there is a strong backlash against this guy.

I haven't travelled with a cabin for a good while now but have had no problems (or heard of no problems) for a good 10 or so trips. As far as my experience has been, you must have been unlucky

^Same Almost sad when I saw it was back on, knew the books would be closing

As I've said before, I haven't made up my mind. I can appreciate for many this bill will be beneficial, I do care about that and that's why i've stated that I am in favour of the benefits etc. But even with the advanced directive, I don't believe the scope for abuse is negligible. Doctors are the ones who essentially have all the facts, they will also have an opinion on euthanasia, and an opinion on each specific case. I don't think it's a massive leap to suggest that some doctors, conciously or not, will subtly influence a patients decision towards their opinion of what should happen. I think there is merit in the argument that doctors should not have this massive moral responsibility when the consequences (either way) or so huge. There is the possibility that some people who make living wills will have changed their minds by the time things go really bad, but haven't altered the document. In those cases patients might die against their will. Again for emphasis - I do believe there are cases where euthanasia is the best possible option. But i'm not convinced this bill (or any other euthanasia proposals) will only affect those cases. Edit - Yeah I think the religious opposition to the bill is flawed

Active euthanasia is only legal in Holland and Belgium as far as i'm aware, while assisted suicide is legal also in Albania and Luxembourg. I don't think it's legal in Switzerland but they have a weird approach to punishment that I don't really understand too well! Basically - hardly equivalent to abortion etc where it's legal in most of the western world... I agree in principle to the proposed benefits to the bill, but i'm not convinced by "i'm sure there will be safeguards". That's refusing to even consider possible negatives, which is a bit short sighted if you ask me. I don't think that, at least if it follows any other existing model, this bill will have adequate safeguards. I'm not convinced that there can be adequate safeguards.

Don't really see the point of an "atheist" school really. Unless it's a school to educate those who think atheism is a religion and Richard Dawkins convinces people with "brainwashing"... The main point of school is to allow you to think for yourself, and make up your mind on all different kinds of issues in life, including religion. An atheist school that just told pupils that they should not believe would go against this. Even one where things were just taught by atheist teachers who kept pointing out that they didn't believe etc, that would be equivalent. Children are impressionable, and environment is important so this would also hinder them forming their own opinion. An atheist school that was neither of these may aswell just be a school to be honest!

The argument against doesn't need to be a purely religious one. I think it's clear that there are cases in which euthanasia is the best option. Obviously when someone is suffering a great deal, but can't communicate their wishes to die effectively it would seem fairly intuitive to end their suffering past a certain point. But what point? This is the sticking point for many. What safeguards would there be to make sure those who actually wanted to die, were the only ones allowed euthanasia? Would there not be cases where there was significant pressure for them to agree to it, or would there not be cases where relatives would lie about their wishes? In light of this, it seems necessary to draw the line somewhere. For the record, i'm undecided. Just want to point out that there are perfectly coherent arguments with a bit more base than "ending life is bad"

In Scotland, 2/3 of msps need to vote in favour of dissolution of parliament. No confidence would remain exactly the same as the current system, just at the moment only the prime minister can dissolve parliament. This way, the house of commons gets that power, but with a safeguard to make sure government doesn't just dissolve it to get a majority if the polls are looking good.

I hear Alistair Carmichael got deputy government whip

Given that several then cabinet ministers spoke out against forming an alliance with lib dems, Labour wasn't really an option. If you wanted a labour lib dem alliance? Blame labour Didn't want a Conservative government? Blame those who voted for them Didn't want the Tory manifesto enacted? Me neither, and thank the lib dems that there are major concessions

PHD's exist for pretty much anything though...

They still wouldn't have a majority though. Yeah, but they'd surely the nationalists wouldn't support the tories by voting them down? At the least they'd have tacit consent to govern.

I reckon it looks like a deal with labour is more likely at the moment

Definitely, but I can at least understand the merit of having everyone do them. Something so specific as knitting, I can't see the benefit in having everyone do. I think having knitting part of art would be a good idea, because it would be a shame to see it die out, but having everyone do knitting as a stand alone subject for 5 years?

I hated knitting in schools so much. I was completely crap at it. I think personally it should be part of art or something. I wasn't much good at art either but at least there was something in there that you could generally find that you preferred. Having to do knitting for 5 years though, which is a very specific thing that i was specifically awful at just made me resent it.