StringJunky

Here's a link to electrostatic filter material...don't know what the air resistance is like though:

http://www.electrostatic-filter.com/choices.shtml

I somewhat agree, it is only going to be civil as long as there are not any 'actual' believers. I must admit I don't have much faith or see much use for a Religion Forum on SFN, but that just my opinion.

If you don't have a use for it...don't use it. Ignore it and let the people that do want that utility make use of it. It's not difficult.

Merged post follows:

 

But please do carry on with your circle jerk...

They are not circle jerking..they are trying to lay good foundations by setting a good example on how it should be done.

So far, none of the threads in the religion forum boil down to existence. Sure, you could reduce them to "but God doesn't exist!" if you wanted to, but that's not their point.

 

Criticism of beliefs is not offensive. I can say "ah, but that doesn't take into account fact x," and I'd be perfectly tactful. But if I say "you're not taking into account fact x, so clearly you're hiding evidence to cover up for your shameful ignorance," I'm being offensive. And I'm making even less of a contribution to the discussion than the alternative.

 

You can talk about religion even if you don't believe it's true.

Exactly...not every conversation needs to be of an adverserial or combative nature. Sometimes people want to mutually explore ideas without fear of judgement...LET, not MAKE, the person come to their own conclusions from what we OFFER them

Let Philosophy and Religion be that place.

The. fact is BILLIONS of people ARE religious and it doesn't help the cause of science by being fundamentalist in attitude ourselves....a corrosive and critical attack style only puts them on the defensive ..then they are lost to science.

I'm not religious but I have no problem with the way the Mods want it to be run.

The full rigor of the Scientific Method can be maintained in the proper science forums without being compromised by the presence of P&R.

Quite often, scientific discussions veer naturally into metaphysical or philosophical territory and I think people should have the 'sandbox' of P&R where they can test there ideas and beliefs with each other cordially and see where it leads...without necessarily trying to PROVE anything, but still coming to an agreeable conclusion, or without leaving the person who's sharing and testing a metaphysical or philosophical idea feeling negative about the experience when their idea doesn't work out logically under the spotlight of mutual discussion.

With the Science Forums we have the place for evidence-based dialogue and in P&R we now have a place to explore the whys and foundations of personal or societal beliefs without necessarily measuring against a rigid scientific 'yardstick' or methodology if it's not appropriate.

If one can't make the necessary attitude adjustment in the P&R forum, don't go there...it shouldn't be seen as a gladiatorial arena like the rest SFN if that's not the the spirit or intention of the OP in a particular thread there....simple.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

This is the UK Food Standard Agency's take on Aspartame:

http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/additivesbranch/sweeteners/55174

According to the review, in the estimations from different studies in Europe you can consume 14 cans a day containing the stuff for all your lifetime and experience no adverse effects...as long as you don't have PK as already mentioned.

The amount allowed in any given foodstuff is determined by how much people use that foodstuff in normal circumstances so going over the recommended daily intake is unlikely.

I reckon 14 cans a day safely is a rather generous margin and anyone consuming that much everyday is probably going to induce other problems unrelated to Aspartame.

A constant accurate figure is not possible because the Earth's orbit round the Sun is elliptical, therefore, the time it takes light to reach us varies at any given moment in time to the next. The eight minute figure is probably a ballpark average of the nearest and furthest distances in the Earth's orbit to the Sun.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

It's a programming language. Euphoria stands for:

End-User Programming with Hierarchical Objects for Robust Interpreted Applications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_%28programming_language%29

Sayonnara: You might bring in a new set of posters that have expertise and/or a strong interest in Earth Sciences if that subject had a designated home where it was concentrated as opposed to scattered willy-nilly all over the different boards.

At the moment that subject is nothing more than an orphaned afterthought discussed predominantely by seasoned posters here that know how this place is laid out.

Any practicing or aspiring Earth Scientist passing through might easily miss any threads pertinent to their interest because it's not specifically categorized in a prominent position like the other sciences.

You reap what you sow.

Frame of Reference could be thought of as: that point in space (which may be moving) from which some external moving object is measured against.

The need for this term is because there is no such thing as absolute zero velocity...there isn't a universally applicable yardstick where we can say 'this or that object is moving at absolute zero velocity' relative to ALL the background....every external velocity measured is always relative to the motion of the observer or observation point.

You physics guys correct me on this but that's how I understand it at the moment.

One tactic I thought of against spambots, allthough it's not cheap, is to find the state-of-the-art spambot and hire the use of it (the best ones be can be bought for a time-limited period) and get the lowdown by it's producer on its capabilities and modify your filters accordingly.

One of the main functions of a spambot is not to sell something it's to improve search engine rankings...more 'hits' = higher ranking.

One spamminig strategy is to 'seed' many forums with 'members' that are inactive for a while and then they are later simultaneously activated to make a post with a similar link. People then hit the links and... bingo.. first page search engine ranking.

They seed first harvest later.

Edited with apologies

No prob.

Iggy: The last two quotes are not attributable to me.

Martin: Thanks for the link in response to my question to Iggy...it was excellent.

 

Yes. In the distant future the only visible galaxy will be the one you are on.

Are the forces of expansion sufficient to separate our Local Group..I thought it was between clusters or superclusters?

What do you mean Moontanman?

Athiesttech: Methinks you misinterpret Edward Current....He's an ATHEIST!

I like this one:

p=8DF8CC5D7E2A5011

What is it about this site that draws the theologically deranged like wasps to jam?

As far as I understand it, it's the distance between Galactic clusters that is increasing at superluminal rates not the galaxies moving themselves. Space can expand at any rate apparently.

Think of a balloon with raisins stuck on its surface and as it blows up the distance increases between the raisins (galaxies).

The individual galaxies don't expand because their individual gravitational forces overwhelm the force of expansion.

This is how you get those figures bigger than the age of the Universe would suggest.

After following Cap'n Refsmmat's links and reading the quote below....

 

In Hahnemann's words:

 

The thirtieth (dilution) thus progressively prepared would give a fraction almost impossible to be expressed in numbers. It becomes uncommonly evident that the material part by means of such dynamization (development of its true, inner medicinal essence) will ultimately dissolve into its individual spirit-like, (conceptual) essence. In its crude state therefore, it may be considered to consist really only of this underdeveloped conceptual essence.

I went to investigate the original quote in Google Books....

 

http://books.google.com/books?btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=consist+really+only+of+this+underdeveloped+conceptual+essence

 

then got the following...

 

Sorry, this page's content is restricted

Limited preview

 

Inside you see "Copyrighted material" and a few blocks of pages missing.

 

Wtf? Anything older than a hundred years is public domain and I never saw Google Books do that with any other public domain books -- especially older than the 1900s.

This is the full version i think:

http://celticboar.com/texts/organon.pdf

I doubt you'll get a helping answer to that...I don't think the aiding and abetting in the manufacture of scheduled substances is encouraged here somehow.

Not to in any way put down the families in question, but after looking at those pictures, I would have to say that 'beauty' couldn't be more subjective. After hearing all those gushing and overly descriptive comments, I was rather stunned to see the actual pics.

 

They all look rather ordinary to me. Adonis? Perfect figure? Wow! Not even close.

People see what they want to see and ignore the rest.... from this selection they create a more beautiful composite that often doesn't align with reality when analysed by a group as demonstrated here.

I think everybody does it...when we are attracted to someone it is because they have certain and sufficient attributes that fit in with our personal model of perfection and we selectively magnify those desired qualities rendering the negative ones insignificant in our minds.

I was going to suggest as an experiment for people to link to a picture of their idea of physical perfection but then I realised it wouldn't be truly representative because people would show images that were considered beautiful by Western media (general consensus) and not honestly follow their own personal instinct for fear of peer disapproval..

The OP has demonstrated what we ALL do ALL the time in this field of life.....selection bias.

Amazing what you can do with a bit of chocolate!

Sisyphus: This might put you on the right track:

http://www.radiolabs.com/products/wireless/directional-wireless-antenna.php

Homeplugs might be useful in addition as well..look at the last set up (wireless):

http://www.homeplugshop.co.uk/Information/5/Diagrams.htm

This might give you some pointers:

http://www.senescence.info/career.html

Thinking about Radium watches...My Grandad had a Rolex radium illuminated watch in WW2 that used to leave 12 small red blotches in a circle on his wrist when he took it off at the end of the day. He was a crew chief on Lancaster bombers.

I doubt that concentration would get passed health and safety today!

Sysiphus: I suppose the parallel here with the US, this side of the pond, is the EU and the problems of implementing harmonious legislation across all the countries...but even here, on major issues mentioned before, once the EU bureaucracy make a decree it becomes law across all countries...abortion law is not fully harmonious IIRC though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm

I can't comment any further on this issue in California until Bascule, or someone, enlightens, me to as to my earlier post.

Sorry Bascule, I'm not savvy with US political structure..is the Federal Gov. the highest tier or is it state level?

My ignorance leaves me confused as to why the federal government doesn't recognise the medicinal benefits yet there are medical marijuana dispensaries dispensing the stuff presumably legally?

My interpretation (at the moment) of your post is its allowed at the local state level in some places but not condoned officially by central government.

You have national government structure and a state government structure (with a certain amount of legislative independence) don't you? One more tier than the UK I think.

This situation doesn't occur in the UK as Central Government determines these kinds of matters and are applicable to the whole country.

Your country having so many independent state legislative bodies is what severely hinders the rate of progress on this issue and gay rights, abortion etc nationally I think.....too many cooks spoil the broth.

Bascule: I acknowledge now, with your subsequent response, that you were not intentionally implying it...it just looks that way when mentioning cannabis in the recreational sense in your first paragraph then mentioning it in the medically therapeutic sense in your second.

I was really just alluding from a debating pov it's a poor strategy as I'm sure you would agree...you didn't mean it that way so it doesn't matter.

As it is here in the UK, I think it is absurd that the medical research profession has to be licensed by the Home Office to experiment with it, not because it is potentially lethal but because it is politically controversial.

Scientists should decide first and foremost whether it's worth pursuing not politicians.

On a positive note, it would appear that UK lawlords are recommending it become schedule 2 and allowed under medical supervision:

Lord Perry of Walton, chairman of the inquiry said: "We have seen enough evidence to convince us that a doctor might legitimately want to prescribe cannabis to relieve pain, or the symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), and that the criminal law ought not to stand in the way. Far from being a step towards general legalisation, our recommendation would make the ban on recreational use easier to enforce. Above all, it would show compassion to patients who currently risk prosecution to get help." Dec. 2009

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-uk-law-lords-say-legalise-cannabis-for-medical-use-1261968392.html

It's nice to see them basing their decision on evidence, and not dogma....like good scientists!

If its medical use becomes mainstream here perhaps the US will follow eventually, if the evidence as a valid therapy is overwhelming for specific ailments. Only widescale, controlled and monitored research can determine this.

I agree with you Bascule, from the medical perspective, the present situation is nonsensical.