gordon bennett

No, the engine thrust has to be kept equal to the forces going in the opposite direction from friction, or the plane will move forward, contradicting the problem as originally given. This means that the friction force, normally negligible, now becomes as significant as the engine thrust; both are very low, making any lift impossible in any case. Incidentally, if there is no friction in the wheels, as some of the discussions assume, then the conveyer belt can't slow the plane down, and the original question is meaningless. Another drink, I think. :yes:

Sadly, and this has now become very sad, there's a little bit more to be said. The idea of the wheels spinning round providing no force no matter how fast the conveyor goes is only a modelling assumption. So the belt not slowing the plane down is only theoretical. In practise there would be a little bit of friction in the system. Since the direction of the jet force and the friction force would be parallel but not meet, what's known as a "couple" would be set up, sending the plane's nose smashing into the conveyor belt. It's bit like if someone gives you a massive shove from behind in the shoulder blades. You fall over on your face. Right, now for a very large drink. :wallbutt: :sick:

Fun for after the Christmas turkey: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000AM7TPC/202-5675550-3624626 Apparently Stevie G costs £240 to Harry Kewell's £260. Hmmmm. :whatever:

You're a beardy. They're banned (see opening post). Come and join me in the "Beards are great" party. My minister for sport will be Djibbers.

Just been given the ITV coverage on DVD- though I'll get the official version. Just finished watching. Things I missed live: YNWA at half time. "If it goes to penalties, Liverpool might want a German on the pitch". The crowd numbers- like a home match! How well SG played. How much it meant to him. All is forgiven here. Garcia and Traore making goalmouth clearances. Smicer with cramp, but getting back up. Kewell being so badly injured (I was less forgiving at the time!) How well Xabi played. :D

Just watched the video. Let's get behind him now and he'll play better, and be the inspiring genius he was in Istanbul. What would not supporting him achieve for LFC?

And back to SG again.

Ariel (mermaid) picture now replacing SG. Someone a bit fishy replacing someone a bit fishy.

Awesome 8)

We're naturally selfish, but we have a conscience! It varies from person to person how the selfishness/conscience balance works in practise. And playing that game is why Labour have, and continue, to be, more successful than Thatcher. Anyway- who did she beat? Michael Foot with "the longest suicide note in history".

Agreed...but we're being unnecessarily pessimistic! The debt money goes into nameless financial institutions, and we don't benefit. As has been said, developing African countries would increasingly start shopping- which gives us new markets to sell to. Western economies didn't collapse when the Far East industrialised. The Far Eastern economies are the best argument for a more sensible trading system. For example, South Korea was allowed decades ago to pour investment into shipbuilding, and to protect the industry as it grew. This was the platform that allowed them to change from a rural poverty zone into a tiger economy needing no help from us. Even the Tories have changed their policy to saying that countries developing their economy deserve to be allowed to use investment and some trade barriers, until they're ready for open competition. I'm well impressed by the forum's level of knowledge! :D

Apologies to those of you who have actually read the posts, but there are clearly a number who haven't :wallbutt: . So let's repeat it again: WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT MUGABE. We are talking about those countries who ARE trying to do something for their people :yes: . They can't because they're shelling out billions to repay debt. When a Third World government has shown it's trying to do the business, it deserves the chance to do it without a massive debt handicap. Give them a break!

I've worked in some of the worst estates in this country, and I've seen poverty in Africa. The gap between them is the size of TNS/LFC. I felt physically sick, and nearly was on one occasion in Africa. And it's these people who are paying the debt. Where the leaders of a country are trying to do the right thing, and some of them are, we've got to stop leeching debt off the country. ( :no Mugabe, that ain't you :no )

Third World Debt= tax the poor men in the poor countries and give the money to the rich men in rich countries?

:no First part- they give us much more than we give them (see my earlier post). Foreign aid is on the whole well accounted for and well spent, on those that need it, who are a whole lot worse off than you can begin to imagine. Much of it goes to organisations such as Oxfam. Second part- ALL the main political parties campaigned on increasing aid. By the way, Bush has just announced an aid increase. :D Oh, and check that offal link earlier!

And they agree: http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N149214050630-1413.htm

The article didn't seem to say anything against debt cancellation. Perhaps more relevant would be that during the year Live Aid was trying to help Ethiopia by sending them grain, Ethiopia sent the UK $2.7 million of animal food. Why? It was part of their debt repayment scheme. Overall, for every £1 we give them in aid, the 3rd world gives us £3 in debt repayments. That's why Live8 has moved on from fundraising. Will a few publicity hungry pop stars change Bush's mind? No. But there's been a real change in public attitude since Live Aid, and politicians follow public opinion like Wayne Rooney follows the smell of meat pies. African countries are very different. I agree that what should be done about debt depends on who has it. Countries who are sorting themselves out- they should have the debt removed ASAP. Countries with evil types running them- not so easy. Manchester United- debt never removed and interest payments whacked up as high as the law allows.

The suits sit there in a meeting in some megarich drugs company. They have a new treatment for a nasty, terminal disease. They'll sell it in rich countries for loads of money anyway. But what price will they it sell for in poor countries? They can sell it at a price ordinary people can afford. Or make a bit more money selling it at a high price only the rich in that country can afford. Watch these companies go with the high price, knowing a lot of people will die because of that. There is no "law that is applicable to them" that says they have to do that. They will still make a fat profit by selling it at a reasonable price. But instead of going for the Lampard fairly fat profit, they go for the Rooney extra fat profit. No-ones saying they can't make barrow loads of cash. But they can do it responsibly. Oh- and why do you think MacDonalds are moving away from the "we only care about profit" thing as fast as their cholesterol-thick legs will carry them?

If Man U or Chelsea win, players in the lower divisions don't die. If multinationals see profit as all that matters, people die. Capitalism- yes. There's nothing wrong with making money. But responsible capitalism that believes in not abusing people. Pharmaceutical companies could easily sell their drugs at lower prices in the Third World, so ordinary folk could afford them, and they would still make a massive profit.

Pete Bogs- is he the one the Bitters are lining up to replace Graveson? By the way, next time there's a match as disgraceful as that Watford one on, and you need better entertainment, follow the link, go to "Dead Horses", and then "The Death of Darwinism" http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/

Obviously a Red shirt. No argument there. It even says it in the Bible. Isaiah 63:2. God is asked, "Why are your garments Red?" I wonder which Reds shirt, though.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I can understand the answer to every question. Why the tsunami wasn't stopped- I don't know. But I believe there is an answer. And when you witness good as miracles, and the tired alternative explanations don't work anymore, you end up with God.

For a believer, the question isn't "why does God allow evil things?", but "What am I going to do about them?" We don't get the answer to the first question in this life. We will in the next.