Houses Will Cost Less Than Food

[corevalue]

Yeah us science PhD's generally don't.

Which science?

[jez123]

Well I certainly don't think age is a valid reason to patronise someone. There are plenty of stupid and ignorant people of all ages.

A much higher % of people go to uni these days, so it is to be expected that on average the caliber of graduates will be lower. However the top 2% should be just as bright - we haven't devolved in just one generation after all. I would say one of the main differences between now and when my dad did his PhD, is that back then if your were a bright science grad, there was a much higher probability that you'd actually choose to work as a scientist. These days many people doing science degrees have no intention whatsoever of working in science. The just want a numerate degree so they can land a job in the City. Same goes for engineering. The ability of the usurers to attract the brightest graduates with high salries and thus keep them from working in productive/useful industries is half the reason why this country's going to sh1t.

So let me see, on the one hand, you say this countries going to sh1t

On the other hand you say the people "going on to do PhD's don't generally want the hassle of working in the city."

It's a very revealing view. Most of the PhD's (at least the ones that saw it through) went into it because they were actually interested in science. Do you think living on a pittennce and doing a PhD is not "hassle"?. Comparing both, I would say working in the city is a walk in the park. 9-5 lifestyle with decent pay, what's so difficult about that?

You'll also find that your ex Uni or any other good Uni would not accept anyone onto a PhD without being particularly bright. So where you are getting this idea that PhD students are dossers, I don't know.

The countries also going to sh1t because people outside of the science world think they know about scientists. In my experience they don't have a bloody clue so are quite prepared to give them all manner of digs. Whereas if you're a wide boy with a large car then many people seem to think that somehow you've earned it.

Anyway I'm bored of this, it's the typical BS.

Edited March 9, 2008 by jez123

[cock-eyed octopus]

Would you like to explain why technology will not provide a solution, seeing as you're an expert. And by the way even though the underlying laws of themodynamics have been mathematically proven, that's only the maths part. Science laws are only principles and can be falsified. To say something like this:

"technology is not going to let us set aside the laws of thermodynamics"

Means you have no real understanding of science. The laws of thermodynamics could be falsified tommorow.

Glad to see someone else with a grasp of science, i.e the formation of predictive models. Thus far, the application of mathematics based on conservative axioms has worked well for the hard sciences (well, physics really), but how on earth can you apply these mathematical models to non-conservative situations, such as economics?

Since we didn't invent the game, we CANNOT know the rules.

And I'd like to ask the OP exactly WHEN he expects the price of a meal to be greater than that of a house (in this country) - actually, to complicate matters further, I believe this to be the case already; I remember seeing a house on the news for £1 - but you were obliged to spend £100ks on it as part of the deal.

A prediction without a timescale is meaningless.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

So let me see, on the one hand, you say this countries going to sh1t

On the other hand you say the people "going on to do PhD's don't generally want the hassle of working in the city."

I'm not contradicting myself. People in the City do generally work much longer hours than the mates of mine who are doing their PhDs.

Problem is that the City folks can work all the hours they like and it won't create any wealth because the nature of the financial services industry is wealth redistribution, not creation.

[jez123]

I'm not contradicting myself. People in the City do generally work much longer hours than the mates of mine who are doing their PhDs.

Problem is that the City folks can work all the hours they like and it won't create any wealth because the nature of the financial services industry is wealth redistribution, not creation.

People in the city spend longer at their desk/in meetings etc.

People doing PhD's spend 24/7 working (at least they should be by the time they've gotten to their 3rd year)

One is as easy as speaking, the other is a brain fry.

Edited March 9, 2008 by jez123

[corevalue]

Yeah us science PhD's generally don't.

So, come on brainbox, justify the statement below, shows us the math. I will make an assumption, which seems to be unstated - that you wish to grow vegetables more effectively indoors than out. For a start, you might consider how many joules it takes to grow a radish, how much energy is provided by average solar insolation on the area of a growing radish, the efficiency of available solar panels and lighting, and the power density of wind turbines. I repeat, you're talking out of your fundament.

"The other thing is of course, if you combined a wind turbine with a solar panel you could grow vegetables indoors right now. So that's another thing that you've said that's completely wrong."

As for the laws of thermodynamics changing tomorrow, what probability would you attach to that? And you call me a twot!

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

People in the city spend longer at their desk/in meetings etc.

That's quite an understatement. Some of them practically live at their desks. My old boss at DB even had a fold out bed in his office

People doing PhD's spend 24/7 working (at least they should be by the time they've gotten to their 3rd year)

Only 'cos they spent the first two years dossing about/shagging undergrads.

One is as easy as speaking, the other is a brain fry.

There's a difference between working hard and working smart, and for me that pretty much sums up the difference between the City and a PhD.

[jez123]

So, come on brainbox, justify the statement below, shows us the math. I will make an assumption, which seems to be unstated - that you wish to grow vegetables more effectively indoors than out.

Wrong, I didn't say how effectively you could grow them, I just said you could.

You seem to be missing the point, I didn't come into this argument with the conclusion that there will be a food shortage. It's not up to me to show you the math, becuase I'm not the one with the predictive model. The onus is on the person with the predictive model to tell us how much food can be grown indoors to supplement the food produced outdoors.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Argument_from_incredulity

"The other thing is of course, if you combined a wind turbine with a solar panel you could grow vegetables indoors right now. So that's another thing that you've said that's completely wrong."

And what's wrong with that pray tell? Again debunk it or don't assert it. Are you now saying you can't grow vegetables indoors? The wind turbine and solar panel would probably improve the efficiency, but how much? You tell me, I'm not the one with the predictive model leading to the food shortage conclusion that needs to factor it into their calculations, along with every other thing I've thrown at them that they've shrugged off without even so much as a thought. GM crops, technological improvements, hell what's the probability of a climate change pertaining to better environmental conditions for growing crops? None of this is being stated, yet if you don't agree that there is going to be a food shortage based on a few basic land calculations somehow your argument is irrational.

Sounds a bit like a "God exists" argument to me

As for the laws of thermodynamics changing tomorrow, what probability would you attach to that? And you call me a twot!

I didn't assign any probability to it. However, someone assigned a probability that they will never change

Perhaps you could join their camp and update their predictive models with the calculations you are clearly itching to do to impress.....

Edited March 9, 2008 by jez123

[JohnG]

Mind you, the combination of #72 and #100 looks like a winner.

Ah, you're a Freemason, then?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Yeah us science PhD's generally don't.

You're lying, I believe Jezz.

Nobody who makes posts that are so unutterably, self evidently, intellectually challenged could plausibly claim to have a PhD in the any of the physical sciences.

I have held off up to this point from interacting with you any further than I initially did because experience has taught me that it's a rather pointless excercise. We unfortunately live in a world world now where people are encouraged to think that their opinions are valid merely because they hold them. Such opinions do not apparently now need to be subjected to the cold, hard, objective light of rational thought as we know it because we are all now encouraged to think that we and, as a consequence, our opinions have equal validity with any other opinions. I regret to tell you this, but they do not. No matter how much you would like to think so. None of the people with whom you have exchanged posts so far, have put forward any view that cannot be backed up with the scientific knowledge as it currently stands. The views that you have expressed, on the other hand, are not backed up by any knowledge (or even rational thought) as far as it is possible to see. It is therefore logically incumbent upon you to either provide scientific evidence to back up your outlandish claims. Alternatively, you should be at least able to provide a logical famework within which your claims could be debated. You have provided neither. Unless and until you do, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously. You cannot expect anyone to think you are anything more than the fool you present yourself to be. If you are a fool and a liar as I suspect, you will not respond to this post by providing any of the things I have asked for above (research evidence in favour of your claims, or at least evidence of a logical mind). Please do, though, by all means demonstrate the above and in doing so you will cause me to happily ammend my analysis of you based on your "contributions" to date on this thread.

You could start by stating which science subject it is that you have a PhD in. State the institution you took your undergraduate degree and your PHd at. When you graduated etc....

I wont hold my breath....

Steve

Edited March 10, 2008 by Bart of Darkness

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

You're lying

Nobody who makes posts that are so unutterly, self evidently, intellectually challenged could plausibly claim to have a PHd in the any of the physical sciences.

Steve, I think you're probably right in assuming that jez123 does not have a PhD, but I don't necessarily believe that someone with a PhD cannot be "intellectually challenged' as you so finely put it.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Steve, I think you're probably right in assuming that jez123 does not have a PhD, but I don't necessarily believe that someone with a PhD cannot be "intellectually challenged' as you so finely put it.

Absolutely, I agree, they most certainly can be challenged. I've met them!

My problem with this numpty is not the fact that he is one. It's the fact that he suffers from that modern phenomena of thinking that his opinions have merit simply because he holds them and so, consequently, they do not need to be subjected to intellectual criticism. I blame Jerry Springer!

Steve

Edited March 9, 2008 by Steve Cook

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

just plain rude.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

You don't think calling someone a liar on an internet forum is downright f*cking rude?

I suspect you're just another troll

Steve can show he is a man of his conviction and come forward and put his money where his big mouth is, but I suspect he won't see it through, being the idiot that he is.

I think trying to set up a 100k bet on an internet forum seems slightly strange. Would it not make more sense simply scan your phd certificate and send it to Steve in a pm. Or you could send him a copy of your thesis.

[jonjo]

Not strange at all. If he doesn't beleive I have a science PhD he can arrange to bet on it or shutup.

I expect like his food argument, he's full of hot air though and no convictions.

Incidentally are you Steve?

Also I'm also prepared to take a bet that I'm a scientist at one of the top 5 Universities in the world..... go ahead Steve make my day... do you feel lucky punk, well do ya?

Anyone running a book on this - i'll put a tenner on Jez having failed his A levels

[jez123]

Anyone running a book on this - i'll put a tenner on Jez having failed his A levels

That's not worth it

How about you go 100K A levels, BSc MSc PhD?

Probably not because all the little mice that are coming out to take a swipe are full of it

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Anyone running a book on this - i'll put a tenner on Jez having failed his A levels

Probably. I can't think why anyone with a PhD would ever claim to have a "science" PhD. Far too vague and there's not really such a subject.

Jez should clear this up by scanning his certifictate/posting his thesis/ revealing his true identity and stop faffing around with 100k bets.

Edited March 9, 2008 by InternationalRockSuperstar

[huw]

I'm not proposing anything. You've just constructed a strawman argument. The thing about solar cells is just a flippant comment.

Not a strawman argument then, but a response to a 'flippant comment' -- and one I'd have taken as just that, but for your very explicit (but doubtless also very flippant) disclaimer stating that it was no such thing.

[jonjo]

That's not worth it

How about you go 100K A levels, BSc MSc PhD?

Probably not because all the little mice that are coming out to take a swipe are full of it

"The more you know

The less you need to show"

I'm changing my side bet to failing his GCSE's

[huw]

I think that is called a window

And don't tell me, human ingenuity will soon come up with a special new glass that lets the window be the size of a postage stamp, while giving the same effect as 1000s of sq kms of greenhouse

[huw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6945732.stm

That can't be right can it? The laws of thermodynamics, they say no

Hey, they been falsified (sic) already and it's not even tomorrow yet

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

"The more you know

The less you need to show"

I'm changing my side bet to failing his GCSE's

I reckon he's special needs.

[jonjo]

And don't tell me, human ingenuity will soon come up with a special new glass that lets the window be the size of a postage stamp, while giving the same effect as 1000s of sq kms of greenhouse

Not that far fetched actually. As Jez will tell you, his current project is to produce a window that slows light as it travels through. The light would take 2 weeks to travel through his glass. He is planning to take this out to far flung places and sell them as windows in the UK. The view out of your window could be the incredible Himalayan landscape. He also plans starting a company that swaps windows around the globe so that someone living in amazon rainforest can experience the richness of the view across a Bradford council estate.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Not that far fetched actually. As Jez will tell you, his current project is to produce a window that slows light as it travels through. The light would take 2 weeks to travel through his glass. He is planning to take this out to far flung places and sell them as windows in the UK. The view out of your window could be the incredible Himalayan landscape. He also plans starting a company that swaps windows around the globe so that someone living in amazon rainforest can experience the richness of the view across a Bradford council estate.

was that in his PhD thesis

[huw]

Ok? Care to explain that one... are you now saying a scientist being unconvinced about something is falsification?

Of course, not, I'm referring back to your assertion that they could be 'falsified' tomorrow.