Vulgarian

What assumption? I never said that such structures are impossible, though from what I've read it seems their existence is implausible in the extreme, but as you say, it's perfectly valid to investigate the possibility of their existence scientifically. What I'm saying is that the reporting of them is sensationalist, and typical of how the popular media misrepresents scienctific research. While astronomers are trying to determine whether such things are even possible, and what they might look like if they were, the media gallops ahead to reporting that possible alien megastructures have been discovered.

Alien megastructures? Sensationalist rubbish. Astronomy is interesting enough without aliens being involved.

That's wonderful beyond words. Thanks, Chinahand.

You credit me with too great an understanding of economics, which is really not my field of interest. But I understand some basic principles. You described a situation in which both parties have equal or nearly equal bargaining power, which is not the reality of many capitalist transactions. In many parts of the world people are exploited in relationships which are unequal, and in which they have little power to negotiate the terms. The state has a role in protecting its citizens from this kind of exploitation, and states take different approaches to this. There are of course those who think that the state is unnecessary and that we would all be just fine and free if money decided everything. Anarcho Capitalists seem to be loons who are fixated on an unworkable pet theory. How far states go in this seems to be a delicate balancing act. To suppress profiteering and protect their citizens from the effects of greed, but risk losing investment and stifling growth; or on the other hand to allow capitalism free reign to abuse and exploit people who are not in a position to negotiate, and hope that this promotes economic growth which will eventually benefit everyone. Take the power station as an example. So a government accepts investment to build it, and these investors want to maximise their return. What is to stop energy companies conspiring to fix prices? Consumers are not in a position to bargain against such collusion. The government has laws that prevent this. What if the power company is the only provider in an area? Can they charge what they like? Again the state may step in and cap profits. What if the provider puts out misleading or dishonest information to the public? There are laws that prevent this. Tell me if I am mistaken in any of this. But what I'm saying is that people's primary protection from exploitation should come from the state and not be left in the hands of those capitalists who seek to maximise the profits that can be extracted from them. Education and other means of empowerment are great but they are 'soft' and do not provide protection from the real threats of greed.

Sounds great but citizens need to be protected from exploitation from capitalists seeking good return on their investment. Where do you think the return on an investment comes from? It doesn't come out of thin air. It comes from the work and money of citizens who are too often taken advantage of.

It's not a thing. Sorry if my post gave the impression that the 'conscious observer' effect is real. It's the measurement by any device that is the important thing. I meant that this fact is amazing.

It's not really true that observation by conscious observers is what effects the outcome of physical (quantum) events. The thing that appears to matter is the measurement of the event by any device that can register it. This is what, in one interpretation, causes the wave function of a particle to collapse. I've seen this 'conscious observer' thing bandied around as though our human minds have some special influence over the physical world. The slant on this often seems to border on the spiritual or mystical. It's nothing of the sort, although it is bloody amazing.

Ah, the bot-fly! Staple of trashy Discovery channel gross-out "documentaries". The article about the bat parasites is great.

Why is that spider-looking fly hanging onto an aggrieved bat's face?

That Dyson sphere stuff is patently ridiculous. Why would any civilisation require that amount of energy? They would have to be using the energy of enough stars to noticeable affect the light emissions of the whole galaxy.

I think most young people, teenagers anyway, have heard about this particular accident, and there isn't a person on the island who hasn't some connection to someone who has died on the roads. I do agree that a jail sentence does not serve as a deterrent to bad driving. Most reckless driving goes on out of sight of police and is only discovered when it leads to an accident, so there is slim chance of actually being caught. As far as sentencing serving as a deterrent to causing death by dangerous driving, assuming that few set out to kill another person in this way, it cannot possibly be a greater weight on the mind of a young driver than the thought that they might kill someone. The problem of young people dying on the roads as I see it is poor judgement, lack of experience, and lack of understanding of the real effects that their actions can have. We cannot eradicate youthful risk-taking and poor judgement, but we can educate about the effects in such a way as to make young drivers think twice about driving dangerously. Classroom sessions on the consequences of dangerous driving should be mandatory for anyone who wants to get behind the wheel of a car. These should not shirk away from portraying the stark truth about dying on the road. Death and bereavement are too often cloaked in euphemism designed precisely to obfuscate reality. This must be removed to reveal the devastation caused when a young person dies in a road accident: relatives inconsolable with grief (Lucia's mother and sister said in a statement in court that they frequently cry themselves to sleep in each others' arms), and the physical effects of violent death on the roads. It seems that a vengeful sense of justice is innate in humans and is something that no civilisation, no matter how developed, can be rid of. It is not rational. In what way does destroying yet another life – rotting away, forgotten, in an expensive prison which we must pay for – improve the outcome of such a sad case as this? It doesn't. It is vengeance, pure and simple.

Justice has to serve several often conflicting ends when it comes to sentencing, and cases like this are especially difficult. Retribution, rehabilitation, reparation, or deterrent? Where should the emphasis be placed when sentencing? Retributive justice doesn't leave much room for rehabilitation or concern for the future prospects of the convicted. It doesn't necessarily act as a deterrent either. Yet it is still the basis of sentencing in most cases. Our sense of justice – really little more than revenge dressed up in a wig – has to be sated. If it were not there would be a loss of public faith in the justice system leading to problems for the state. So there is always a foundation of retribution in sentencing, especially in person-on-person crimes. In a case like this where the convicted had no intention of causing any harm, but through lack of judgement caused the death of his friend, it's clear that many people still crave retribution. A wrong has been done, a life taken, and this must be payed for. But aside from satisfying a vengeful desire, what purpose does this approach serve? It really doesn't act as a deterrent. To argue that it does assumes that for young drivers the thought that they might end up killing themselves or their friends isn't deterrent enough. This is obviously not the problem. The problem is that youthful high spirits, peer pressure, and maybe the influence of some substance or other often lead to failures of judgement. Combine this with fast-moving vehicles and dangerous roads and often enough you end up with bunches of flowers left on the roadside. In this case, as far as rehabilitation goes, there isn't much to be said. There was never any criminal intent to begin with. There's no use talking about reparations, financial or otherwise, because the damage is not material and can never be accounted for in these terms. I find myself thinking, 'what's the point of handing out any sentence?'. Some here have said as much as there is really no positive outcome to any sentencing in this case. I tend to agree. But where some have said that accidents like these cannot be avoided I must disagree. There are things that can be done toward reducing the frequency of these accidents, but not through the sentencing of those responsible. More education is needed. I personally think that a 'shock and awe' approach might be effective in jolting young people's heads back to reality for long enough to make them exercise that all-important facility for judgement. The sight of a teenage girl's crushed and distorted face is something that tends to stick in your mind and leap back into your consciousness from time to time.

I admire your patience and tenacity, Chinahand, but I get the feeling you are wasting your time on a lost cause.

When you force people off their land, deny them basic rights, maltreat and oppress them, deliberately provoke and antagonise them into violent reaction in order to justify further abuse, what do you expect them to do?

Laminate wood floor looks bloody naff. It's dishonest, isn't it? It's pretending to be something its not, something better, and real. People in a decade or so will be tearing it up like stone cladding and stucco wallpaper. Put some good honest carpet down! Or some lino if you're concerned about keeping it clean, as long as it's not trying to pass itself off as flagstone floor or cobbles or something...