StringJunky

As a long time user, until 8 years ago when I stopped completely, I can tell you that cannabis is NOT an innocuous substance. The most notable long-term effect is its effect on short term memory; that part of your memory that deals with things you've just done or thought of...your mind goes intermittently blank on these things. This can lead to a discontinuous train of thought. In a nutshell, yes it does damage your brain. How can it not? It alters your brain chemistry! http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html You don't need scientific proof hat it causes mental harm. Look closely at the long term users around you, that you know, and compare them to those you know who don't...as I have done. Proportionally, I bet the group who smokes are more socially isolated and dysfunctional ( ie have more antisocial or pathalogical behaviour patterns) than the group that don't...that behaviour is symptomatic of a mental dysfunction, most likely, brought on by cannabis or in combination with other substances If you are looking for scientific reassurance, you won't find it...If you acknowledge the evidence. Which is more important, your long-term mental health or your short-term pleasure?

A logical anomaly only understood by the administration.

I agree with you Bascule. Climatology is a science and when it is discussed in the General Discussion section this often means it is not treated properly with respect to debating discipline and supporting evidence like in the Pure Science/Math's forums...when someone makes an unsubstantiated comment moderators don't seem to intervene and demand it...this is General Discussion after all and sloppiness is allowed! I also agree with iNOW and the need to avoid too many categories, so my idea would be to alter General Discussion and rename it called Discussion, which is split into General Discussion and Technical Discussion. All the scientific posts that don't fit in the existing categories can be put in Technical and given their due respect and required forum discipline.

Each colour in m&m's is made up of a different compound which has it's own unique colour signature, hence their use. The blue ones contain a compound called Brilliant Blue G which is the chemical stirring researchers interest

If you go to this website (you need to sign up to do it though- they are very good and I've been a member for 8 months) and click the 'Hijack This and Spyware Removal' forum a competent person will analyze your Hijack This log and help you get rid of it if you have a problem. http://forums.techguy.org/

Yes, you are right for applications where the beam diameter needs to be as small as possible with the minimum of heat spread. I found this: "The fundamental wavelength of the Nd YAG laser is 1.064 microns while the CO2 laser emits at 10.6 microns. Most industrial laser marking systems use either the fundamental output of these lasers. The Nd YAG laser wavelength can also be shifted into the green at 0.355 micron or the UV at 0.266 microns using non linear optics. These shorter wavelengths are now being adopted for very small (micro-marking) applications in a broad range of materials. The shorter wavelength of the Nd YAG laser couples to metal better than the CO2 laser. However, for many marking applications on plastics or painted objects, the CO2 laser is equally as practical as the Nd YAG laser and may be somewhat less costly. Nd YAG laser beams also have the advantage of focusing to a smaller spot diameter, with higher power density. As a result, they produce a smaller heat affected zone and less thermal distortion. Nd YAG laser energy may also be delivered via a fiber optic cable which allows for greater flexibility in the factory environment. In general, Nd YAG lasers at the fundamental 1.064 wavelength are best suited for marking metals while the CO2 laser is more suited for plastics, painted or organic marking. This is the Global Standard." I got it from here: http://www.inkcups.com/articles/co2-and-yag-laser-technology/Default.aspx Although this article is about marking we can, I think , assume these differing abilities, mentioned above, extend to cutting since we both know each type is capable of cutting metal anyway.

Not quite sure what you meant by that but (forgive me if I misinterpreted) CO2 lasers do cut metal:

Welcome to the club :cool:

Dichotomy: Given the the level of political hostility and competitiveness between the two countries do you honestly think Russia would let the US get away with a scam of that magnitude if they didn't do it? Think of their resources that they had (and have now), compared to ours here on this forum, and yet they are quiet and have been for 40 years. Think of the political points Russia would gain from showing it was scam. "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. " - Abraham Lincoln I can't say anymore

Yes that's the one. The one you've linked to is the 18th edition, the 19th edition should be out in december: http://www.amazon.com/Upgrading-Repairing-19th-Scott-Mueller/dp/0789739542 I would get the 19th edition as it deals with 45nm process cores (the latest processors). I've got the 18th and I think it's slightly out of date now if you want to know about the latest stuff. You actually get a video tutorial by Scott with every book on some aspect of pc building or system setup. For understanding the hardware side of computing it's the only book you'll ever need...I've had 3 editions so I'll let that speak for itself.

Wow! That is awesome Mokele....I thought only something like an African Grey had that kind of problem-solving ability. Are all the Rooks, Crows, Ravens and Magpies etc of a similar skill level or does one type stand out above the others intelligence wise?

It is several years since I've been in to the hardware side of computers but I do remember you need to match the 'bandwidth' of each componenent for the most efficient throughput of data not just matching clockspeed. Here's a link to explain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-side_bus I think it would be hard to come up weith a ready formula for matching components as there are so many different standards to consider. Choose your processor, find out its bandwidth capabilities and, match the memory bandwidth and motherboard bandwidth to that...simple! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf you really want to get into understanding the hardware side of computers I totally recommend Scott Mueller's " Upgrading and Repairing Computers". It is fantastically well presented but you need a big appetite for the amount of information it contains...no stone is left unturned! I've had 3 editions. It is a technician level manual that requires minimal prior knowledge of computers since it explains everything from scratch. Scott's the nuts.

You want the ideal computer hardware spec that has no data bottlenecks...is that right

"Absolute, definitive evidence doesn't exist. For anything. Ever. Science realized that decades ago. Hell, we've even *quantified* how certain we need to be - 95%. There has to be a less than 5% chance that any result could be due to chance in order for it to be publishable. That standard has held up for decades."-Mokele "Roald Sagdeev who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland. He once was the Director of the Soviet Space Institute. He is right now at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California looking at photos for evidence that there is frozen ice in craters on the moon." - again with the conflict of interest. Sorry, this still makes me 5% short of being convinced, according to the scientific method"- Dichotomy If you are a scientific man, as you claim, your statement above says you are 95% certain. This means you have reached the probability threshold necessary for something to be accepted scientifically, as described by Mokele

I agree Mokele Dichotomy: Here's the URL for the Russian Space Agency- See if you can find some reference to the moonlandings in the 'News Archives' there, I tried but can't handle the Google Translator from Russian! http://www.roscosmos.ru/index.asp?Lang=ENG PLEEEASE MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY AND TELL US YOU YOU FEEL CERTAIN IT HAPPENED!

Humour also helps cope with extreme or adverse conditions that are difficult to cope with on a psychological/emotional level eg 'gallows' humour in the midst of battle, which helps to keep up morale amongst soldiers. If looked at in that way It can be viewed as a coping aid that helps to improve survivability when otherwise one may have given up. In that sense, I think, there is a positive evolutionary advantage to a species having a sense of humour.

It will be a profound moment in the history of science when we can produce, from scratch, a purely organic, synthetic organism from scratch with its own unique DNA profile won't it?....as far away as it may seem at the moment. It will be be like when our ancestors discovered and mastered fire....a whole new ball game!

Rockman: I think Klaynos covers some of your questions quite well in the ' what was there?' thread or it should at least put you on the right footing as to what the big bang was. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42499

Your link makes me wonder how far away we are. in time terms, from producing a single or multl-cellular entity, from scratch, that fulfils the general criteria for what a living thing is?

This is the most powerful laser at the moment: http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2009/03/30/worlds-most-powerful-laser-has-the-energy-of-a-hydrogen-bomb/ The most powerful laser metal cutters seem to be class iv CO2 lasers. I can't find any handheld laser metal cutters like in the films but this static industrial cutter is capable of cutting 1 1/4" steel plate to give you an idea. http://www.norfolkiron.com/page.asp?pageID=12

I found a wikipedia source that lists the third-party evidence that the Apollo moon missions happened; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged -Dichotomy What you are asking is impossible...nobody else was physically up there except Collins, Aldrin and Armstrong. Not even the Russian Scientists could give you that definitive proof...the best they would have was the position of the American spacecraft and not the individual astronauts.. You'll have to live with you 90% certainty amd I'll be content with my 99.999999999999999999999999% The only things that are 100% certain are death and taxes. :

Sorry IA, here's the link: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Luna.html The point I was trying to make was that the Russians had a presence and awareness of what was going on, on the moon, at the same time as the Americans i.e it would have been extremely difficult for the US to make up their achievement when the Russians had their communication and monitoring systems concentrated on that area. After all, this was a space race between the two countries and either side would have monitored the other to ensure fair play! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged America won in the end, but if they had failed in their mission the Russians would have won by bringing back the first moon samples. I think the loss of confidence that the US would have experienced in the propaganda war that was going on between them at that time (they were politically and militarily at a very heated stage in their relationship} would have been significant on the international stage.

The Russians had an mission called Luna !5 going on at the same time, which landed 800km away from the Apollo mission.The American's when they found out about this, up until then secret Russian mission, they were very worried that the Luna spacecraft orbit would interfere with the Apollo mission . The Russians some hours later confirmed that their mission would not interfere with that of Apollo. Here's an extract from an article I found: Luna 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24 Automated lunar sample-return craft, three of which were successful. Luna 15 entered lunar orbit two days ahead of Apollo 11, and on the day Apollo 11 began circling the Moon lowered its own orbit to 9 by 203 km. At this point there was concern in the United States that the Russian probe would somehow interfere with the manned mission. However, assurances were quickly given by the Soviets that this would not be the case. On Jul. 20, just hours before Apollo 11's scheduled landing, Luna 15 carried out another maneuver to put it in a 16- by 110-km orbit. The next day, while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface, the little probe made its last retrorocket burn and began to descend to what was supposed to be a soft landing. Unfortunately, it made contact instead at 480 km/h in the Sea of Crises. Almost twenty years would pass before the Soviets officially admitted that Luna 15 was a failed sample-return attempt. Whether, if all had gone well, it could have beaten Apollo 11 is unclear. Even if its landing attempt had succeeded, it would not have returned to Earth until the day after Apollo 11 splashed down. On the other hand, Lunar 15 did spend one day longer in lunar orbit than was typical of later sample missions. If the probe had made it down in three days instead of four, or if Apollo 11 had failed to return samples, the Soviets might just have pulled off an outrageous coup. The Russians were up there with the Americans.via their unmanned spacecraft..I don't think I've ever read anywhere that the Kremlin ever denied the NASA acheivement.

Dichotomy: I see your point about absolutely solid evidence, it's not possible unless you were actually there, but surely the subsequent moon missions confirm the authenticity of the first? You can't honestly believe NASA faked it SIX times (Apollo !!, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17)? It's a no brainer. that Apollo 11 happened. I find it difficult to believe that anyone, these days. would want to dishonour these pioneering astronauts, and their team on the ground, by denying it ever happened. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnybody that tries to start a thread again on this subject in the future should have it shut down immediately by a moderator.