StringJunky

Your caveat at the end of your post only reinforces what I said. Yes Toasty, modern high-end cameras are fabulous in automatic mode but even they would still be user dependent in non-average situations like that one (lowish-light/high contrast/moving object). Anyways! It would be interesting if someone could generate a plausible alternative hypothesis contrary to the official version. No ideas about flybys from E.T. please!

The point of my posts, I suppose, is to make people aware of the limitations of cameras and that they can only, most of the time, approximate what we actually see with our eyes..the camera will lie unless we are aware and compensate for its limitations. Photography was a night and day passion for me up 'til about 10 years ago and one of the skills a good photographer has to master is to calibrate its results with that of one's mind's eye in order to create a true picture, as seen or desired by the photographer. In a nutshell, the camera's sensor or film (as it was then) don't render the world before it the same as the human eye. This can give the impression of a scene that actually bears no relation to past reality I hope that makes sense, Captain, it is interesting that you are still sceptical, despite the reports from apparently high-level sources. I am mindful that the sheer weight of numbers saying and repeating the same thing reinforces the missile theory, when in fact it may not be true. Perhaps you might stick with this hypothesis of yours (or discover a new one on the way) and analyze the evidence more closely. Try and collect a body of evidence that supports your hypothesis and contradicts the present consensus. My mind is open,

Here's a video:

InsaneAlien: CCleaner has a facility under the Tools > System Restore tab that allows you to manually remove excessive numbers of Restore points..it saves and prevents deletion of the latest one by default.

Download and install Defraggler disk defragmenter. http://www.filehippo.com/download_defraggler Select the external drive from the list at the top and click the 'Analyze' button at the bottom. This will give you a pictorial idea of the amount and distribution of your files on it and hopefully a true picture of the free space left. It won't sort the problem but it will ascertain the space situation on the drive.

How so...what's the potential mechanism for this to happen? Are you speculating some potential runaway reaction? At first I thought you meant fusion byproducts..but then I thought their half-lives are very short apparently... so now you've got me wondering what you meant?

UC: What's wrong with firehosing a genuine question across a few relevant forums? Ronnymac's not spamming a link around or trolling is he? A good researcher doesn't rely on one source.

It would appear that (in the US anyway) if a person makes negative written comments on the internet about someone that causes demonstrable harm to their business or reputation, which can't be substantiated with evidence, is liable to be sued. That seems fair to me. LIBEL ON THE INTERNET Internet users have been "flaming" others on Internet e-mail, news groups and in Chat lines for years. For those of you who are new to the Internet, "flaming" [as defined in Eric Raymond's Hacker's Dictionary] means posting messages "intended to insult and provoke". In other words, someone posts a message for others to read which insults and/or provokes readers against another person or company. People and companies are now suing these "flame" posters and/or the Internet site host for Libel. Before we look at some of these lawsuits, let me explain what is legally defined as Libel. DEFINITION: Libel is the publication of a false statement, (and is not a privileged communication) which injures one's business or personal reputation. A plaintiff who sues for Libel must prove all of the above and be able to demonstrate some type of resulting damage. This could include being shunned by friends and associates, inability to obtain work because potential employers believed the false accusations. Some states allow for a jury to assess damages based generally on reputational harm. Privileged communication means statements made during judicial proceedings, legislative proceedings, and those made between spouses (in most states). You can lie all you want under these circumstances and not be able to be successfully sued for Libel. The U.S. Supreme Court also created a defense based on the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech to allow the media to freely report on the affairs of "public" persons unless the statements are made with "Malice". NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Malice means either knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. A "Public" person is one who has special prominence in the affairs of society. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). A politician, movie actor, and other "famous" people are "public figures". Other limitations and/or defenses to being able to successfully sue for Libel are: 1. It's the truth. If you have facts and evidence supporting your statement as being true, the plaintiff will not be able to prove that it is false. 2. The group being defamed is too large so as not to be defamatory to any individual. Let's say you write "Lawyers are crooks". John Lawyer will not be able to hold you liable for Libel because it does not specifically say "John Lawyer is a crook". 3. Statements of Opinion and not fact are generally immune from Libel. That's because an opinion can never be proven false. However, if your opinion implies your knowledge of an underlying set of facts which your opinion is based upon, Libel might exist. For instance, stating that a certain business in your opinion "is a fraud" implies that you know of some facts indicating the business has committed fraud. On the other hand, stating "I don't like that business' product" is merely expressing your individual tastes which is not http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html As long people attack the argument, on these boards, and not the person, they should have no fear whatsoever of libel, which is the attitude that's promoted here anyway.

I've found a lecture given by James Lovelock in Canada a few months ago that I think is pertinent to this thread. I think it's part of a tour promoting his latest book 'The Vanishing Face of Gaia'...he touches on many aspects discussed here. It's in five parts of ten minutes each: http://www.youtube.com/user/CorporateKnights#p/a/f/2/Eg7Jt_Yzl1o

These might be up your street-they meet the latest safety standards and are soft round the contact points on the face: http://www.ecost.com/detail.aspx?edp=39853852&source=k76919&cm_mmc=Affiliates- Here's a range by the same manufacturer (hover your mouse over each item to get details): http://www.thefind.com/sports/browse-uvex-stealth-goggle

I think he means filamentous like a spiders web...think of lots of dusty spiders webs. Found some great computer simulations here of the Universe in all its cobwebby glory! : http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu/filaments.html The other simulations at the smaller scale look nice too.

It looks like NIKON to me backwards...actually written:' Nikon ' on their cameras. I can even see the dot of the i .

The 345 Rule. 3 lengths of wood, one each in a length ratio of 3:4:5 make a perfectly square corner when joined to form a triangle

There's a few malware watch sites that list it as dangerous here's two listing that I've extracted: 193.169.235.6 donlaci.cn/download/install.php?uid=13400 193.169.235.5 goscanmoth.com/?uid=13400 88.198.160.57 bestscan11.com/download.php?id=2004 91.212.226.186 1uktimes.cn/go.php?id=2004&key=fff0057594&d=1 122.115.63.5 totalcaresix.net/redirect2/ 193.104.153.245 hometimesecurity.com/downloader.php?affid=92800 95.143.192.52 trustedmicrosoftscan2.com/download/pack_283s1.exe http://www.yourpcblog.com/2009/12/dangerous-domain-list-122009/ 2009/12/20_12:02 bestscan11.com/download.php?id=2004 88.198.160.57 static.88-198-160-57.clients.your-server.de. fake av - 24940 http://www.malwaredomainlist.com/mdl.php?search=bestscan11.com&inactive=on I didn't know if it was your installed software that informed you,you did not say.......obviously it was a scareware notification by the malware maker. You would be led to a payment page for a fake Anti Virus according to one site. I'll leave someone else to chime in now.

The uktimes.cn link is a redirect to the bestscan site which apparently has a fake antivirus for download. These sites are flagged as very dodgy. I tried the links but just get a 'server not found error' by firefox. Your anti malware must have that site listed in its database hence it notified you. It would be a good idea to edit those links or notify Wikipedia.

In that article I linked to, it was said the spiral was an effect of the sun on the leaking fuel: Researcher at the Tromsø Geophysical Observatory Truls Lynne Hansen is certain that the light was caused by a missile launch: - The missile has probably come out of control and exploded. The peculiar spiral shaped light pattern comes from reflection of the sun in the leaking fuel, he said to Aftenposten. Don't forget also, the lens, sensor, and shutter speed used will influence the final image as well...there might be some flaring of the light in the lens assembly if the sun is in the frame. If the shutter speed was slow enough and the object was spinning fast enough there will be an after trail effect on the sensor creating this seemingly perfect spiral. Basically, some of the 'information' you are seeing in the pictures may well be artefacts (read: limitations) of the camera system.

Here's a couple of images of mitochondrial DNA http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rkm.com.au/CELL/cellimages/Mitochondrial-DNA-2-500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rkm.com.au/CELL/mitochondrial-DNA.html&h=500&w=500&sz=70&tbnid=tIsOukN7JIPcyM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmitochondrial%2Bdna%2Bimage&hl=en&usg=__qCMJBNDQvDfTYCSQAVfFDuFa9Nk=&ei=JLkvS86xMo334Abdpf2pCA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&ved=0CBUQ9QEwAA

You are right Charony, I did note, on further reading elsewhere, that the statement implying that they are all extremophiles was not correct...It should have said some archaebacteria are extremophiles. My bad for not highlighting it.

Able to live in a variety of environments, archaebacteria are known as extremophiles. Certain species are able to live in temperatures above boiling point at 100° Celsius or 212° Fahrenheit. Archaebacteria can also thrive in very saline, acidic, or alkaline aquatic environments. They employ a variety of chemical tricks to accomplish this, with one species, halobacteria, able to convert light into adenosine triphosphate (ATP) or cell energy, using a non-photosynthetic process. Halobacteria live in waters almost completely saturated with salt, and unlike photosynthetic plants, are incapable of extracting carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-archaebacteria.htm

Is this any good? http://cellimages.ascb.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4041coll26&CISOPTR=169&CISOBOX=1&REC=3 Edit: Here' another: http://www.origin-of-mitochondria.net/?attachment_id=90

The lack of an Earth Sciences forum is a puzzling one, especially given the ever increasing relevance of Climatology and the Earth in general to 21st century life and discussion.

If I remember correctly, Bascule brought that subject up not too long ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42096

Jackson33: I like the idea of this moderation being done 'in the open' since everybody should make themselves aware of the rules before they contribute. There maybe circumstances where it is not appropriate to admonish a transgressor in front of everyone on the boards. Perhaps some visual device inserted at the appropriate point in the thread to indicate to everyone that the matter is 'pending moderation'..this would negate any accusation that a transgression has been ignored or missed by a Mod and at the same time avoid any unecessary public humiliation on the part of the transgressor.

Not even amongst professional scientists it seems. To quote from ajb and Klaynos in Baby Astronaut's thread about checking if something's been through peer review: I don't think it is publicised who has reviewed papers. - Klaynos Referees tend to be anonymous. I think this helps remove any possible hard feelings and resentment when rejecting papers.- AJB http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46870 I was surprised to learn that the source of any scientific critique in the peer review process is anonymous. If scientists can't take critical analysis on the chin from a transparent source, it's hardly surprising that laymen can't take it on these boards either!

Here's the latest news with details confirming it's almost definitely a failed Russian missile and a better photo: http://www.barentsobserver.com/failed-missile-launch-caused-strange-light-over-northern-norway.4663494.html