StringJunky

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.

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.