StringJunky

I would think larger logs are less amenable to to turning over if it's relying on a hot core to keep burning... once you open it up it could cool too much and lose flammable vapour production.

Warp speed.

The main point being that they require extra-ordinary skills that lie outside known physics. I think until physics can derive a feasible possible path to speculating about it, it's just empty wondering...

Another problem is assuming ET's are cleverer than we are. The biggest obstacle for me is transiting light-year distances in reasonable time.

It's apparently used in flexible pvc products, like wire insulation, to reduce cracking. As long as you aren't chewing said products, that's California going overboard.

That probably explains it. Thanks.

I'll have a look. Cheers.

Interesting. Thanks. Yes, it would seem logical for the seller to be obligated because any query by the buyer to the carrier results in being told by them to take it up with the seller to query with that carrier. I felt too that Amazon were probably trying it on.

I could pass it onto CAB to query it. I've read the exact point when risk passes to the buyer is a contentious and complex subject in international sales

I'm confused. I wonder if the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2014 have superseded it.

AFAIK they aren't allowed to create a contract that breaches the law. Here's the UK law on it: Sale of Goods Act 1979 Previous: Provision Next: Provision 32Delivery to carrier. (1)Where, in pursuance of a contract of sale, the seller is authorised or required to send the goods to the buyer, delivery of the goods to a carrier (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer is prima facie deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer. (2)Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, the seller must make such contract with the carrier on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable having regard to the nature of the goods and the other circumstances of the case; and if the seller omits to do so, and the goods are lost or damaged in course of transit, the buyer may decline to treat the delivery to the carrier as a delivery to himself or may hold the seller responsible in damages. (3)Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are sent by the seller to the buyer by a route involving sea transit, under circumstances in which it is usual to insure, the seller must give such notice to the buyer as may enable him to insure them during their sea transit; and if the seller fails to do so, the goods are at his risk during such sea transit. [F1(4)This section does not apply to a contract to which Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies (but see the provision made about such contracts in section 29 of that Act).]

Got a new terms email from amazon, and I read the terms but came across this: RISK OF LOSS All purchases of physical items from Amazon are made pursuant to a shipment contract. This means that the risk of loss and title for such items pass to you upon our delivery to the carrier. Given that the law, on both sides of the pond it seems, say that the contract and responsibilty lies with Amazon and their delivery partners until delivered, does it look like they are imposing terms that contravene applicable US and UK/EU consumer protection laws?

What is the chance of that, and is it our place to police it?

Isn't it a mass spectrometer what's needed?

Can't it all be virtual, in software, and following the rules of neurons?

They aren't being subjected to anything beyond taking samples, which all high-level athletes do anyway; it's an observation exercise.

Of course, it gives you a starting point: numbers.

The perception of harshness is easily avoided if one doesn't become emotionally invested and realise ones idea is being critiqued and not the person. In scientific discourse, emotion is generally left out in responses, and this austerity of feelings is not usual in the social intercourse we have in our daily lives. Once one realizes this, it shouldn't be an issue anymore.

But that's the real-life potential difference. I hope you know by now I'm not a troll or anti-LGBTQ.

Theoretically, that's how fast or hard a transgender female can be. You can either attempt to predict and proact or you can go down the empirical root and react, after the fact. It's an arbitrary choice the way you decide to adjudicate.

The only way I can think of that is quantized and sub-quantized, i.e. Standard Model particles and single virtual particles. virtual particles aren't individually measurable AFAIK.

If AI ticks all the boxes, what other conclusion can you come to? What it means is that self-consciousness doesn't have to have a wet substrate and perhaps the process can be virtual, such that it's pure software, emulating neural processing.

If you can't tell the difference in the responses, I think it's self-aware because you can't prove another real person is self-aware, so a machine and person are in the same boat.

He needs to put his DVD's in an opaque, gas-tight box, full of inert gas, suspended from the ceiling of a cryogenic freezer with elasticated string.

I have seen it mentioned that another requirement is a failure to predict the correct outcome in emergent circumstances. You can't predict what will result from some combination. It seems to me that this requirement is that it 'appears' to be magic. From this, it would seem that the use of the word 'emergence' might just be a placeholder word for some process that is not yet understood.