StringJunky

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Poential medically therapeutic uses for cannabis derivatives is not a justification for condoning its use recreationally as your post seems to imply. Medical cannabis is a highly refined substance and will be named according to the specific components extracted/modified from it just as heroin is not diamorphine in Medicine. I'm not trying to be semantic, Medicine derived from cannabis should not held in the same light as recreational/raw cannabis...they are different things. Discussion about recreational use and discussions about therapeutic use shouldn't really be discussed in the same thread IMO...they are not mutually transferrable.

This is from the UK's Health Service website which suggests that there is medication for this condition, besides surgery, but the cause has to be determined by a qualified doctor first so that the appropriate course of action can be taken. Gynaecomastia is a common condition in teenage boys where firm, tender breast tissue grows under the nipples. It is usually caused by an imbalance of hormones during puberty and usually disappears without treatment within a couple of years. In rare cases, it could be due to taking anabolic steroids, taking certain medicines (prescription or over-the-counter) or using cannabis. Very occasionally gynaecomastia is due to a tumour or disease. If the condition occurs in an adult man, he may need tests to find out the cause of the problem. The problem may be linked to the pituitary gland, the liver or the testicles and treatment may be necessary. Treatment options include medication to reduce the extra breast tissue or, in rare cases, surgery. Some men and boys have fat on their chests that makes it look like they have breasts. This is 'false gynecomastia' and is helped by losing weight. The best way to do this is with a combination of healthy eating and regular exercise. http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/885.aspx?CategoryID=61&SubCategoryID=614 As you can see with the variety of possible causes only a visit to a doctor can give a true answer to a specific case,

Yes that makes sense.

What's the principle source of the rising sea level if Antarctic ice is generally on the increase...is this a long term trend there?

Kodama: They are snake oil merchants in that link ....it's pseudoscientific rubbish, trying to feed peoples latent anxieties and in the process make some money. I think your question about blocking radio waves is ok. You might find this article informative at practical experiment level: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-03/1015162213.Eg.r.html As to the potential health risks of radiowaves in general, I'll leave that to a more informed person to put you right.

Fiction. The area called the Burmuda Triangle is no more satatistically significant for unexplained losses/accidents than anywhere else. Here's a link to a discussion on this held here a few months ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41122

Yes, I agree, in this instance, history shows that this looks like the case given the number of cameras involved. There are sufficient samples to discern the visual elements of the event that agree between the different picture sources and compile a more accurate impression in one's mind. One should always be mindful of instrument error. Don't forget, we are now 'wise after the event'...we were all shooting in the dark before...which was fun.