StringJunky

I found this abstract which goes some way to explain the longevity of trees: "A long life multiplies a tree's reproductive opportunities, thus increasing its fitness. Therefore, characteristics that prolong life should be naturally selected. Longevity in trees is achieved by means of numerous behaviors and characteristics, some of which are unique to trees. These include the retention of stem-cell-like meristematic cells after each growth cycle; the ability to replace non-vigorous, lost, or damaged organs, both above and below ground, in the presence or absence of trauma; a sectored vascular system that allows part of a tree to survive where a whole one cannot; formation of clones; a mechanical structure that can react to forces tending to de-optimize it; a hormonal control system that coordinates the above behaviors; and synthesis of defensive compounds." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12362893 Meristematic cells are like animal stem cells, found at the growth points, that are undifferentiated and can grow in to any cell required at the time...a great survival tactic! As an example, if a tree gets burnt down parts of the rootball, below ground, will have these meristematic cells and will turn into a new apical (central leader) stem which becomes a new tree above the ground.

A case was fought in the UK courts in 2006 by 2 lesbians who were legally married in Canada but wanted their status recognized in England as 'married' and not 'civil union' which is the case here. This was the presiding judge's conclusion: The High Court announced its judgement on 31 July 2006, finding that the marriage would continue to be recognised as a civil partnership in England and Wales, but not as a marriage.[2] In handing down his ruling, the President of the Family Division, Sir Mark Potter, gave as his reason that "Abiding single sex relationships are in no way inferior, nor does English Law suggest that they are by according them recognition under the name of civil partnership." [3]. and that marriage was an "age-old institution" which, he suggested, was by "longstanding definition and acceptance" a relationship between a man and a woman. He described this as an "insurmountable hurdle" to the couple's case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom What ap;peared to me to be nothing more than a semantic argument obviously runs deeper than that, in both the UK and the USA. Thinking about this, being pragmatic, given that the idea of lesbian and gay marriage is a novel one for both our societies, would it not be best for the L&G (lesbisan and gay) community to just enjoy the fruits of what they have already achieved, and just sit tight, for now, until society in general catches up philosophically,..the concept of gay civil union relationships will be normalized through everday exposure. After some years, the idea of same sex marriage will not seem so difficult in the minds of the majority of heterosexual people ie it becomes a natural progression and all the social and legal rights conferred on a heterosexual 'married' couple will transfer to them eventually. The Law tends to reflect the prevailing public consensus, in matters like this, and the judge in the above article was most likely echoing this...that's why I say it is a waiting game for change. I would think US judges work on the same line of thought when issuing judgements of this nature that have social consequences. It's a case of Evolution not Revolution. To corrupt a famous phrase: Viva la Evolution! Afterthought: A relevant secular reason against gay people marrying is that more people don't like the idea...this is democracy in action...it is the will of the majority,,,for now.

iNOW and JiillSwift: I think the reason why the people here can't give a definitive secular reason against your stance is because there is no historical precedent anywhere for gay marriages as a norm, or meaningful statistical data yet to refer to......it is too new. Nobody knows what the consequences will be on our society and in this unknown, lies the fear or concern alluded to by some here. Society is moving into new territory. Because there is currently, insufficient, statistically meaningful data or experience at the societal level, across any decent timeline, nobody can factually argue either way...., without any data about long-term behaviour patterns and social costs. it's all opinion here and the most convincing one wins the argument...this doesn't necessarily make it right. I think we might need a couple of generations to observe and understand the real outcome for society. I have no strong opinion on this matter but just wanted to point this out in the interest of some balance.

My comments were intended to be interpreted with respect to forum etiquette, but I note and accept your appraisal. I am relatively new to forums and it is a challenge to cover all my bases, hence my lack of precision! I stand corrected on my mistaken attribution to Voltaire...it would have been better to have said: inspired by Voltaire.

" Disagreement is to be protected and preserved, and that's a two-way street." - Pangloss This can be read as: " I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"- Voltaire These are both statements relating (in my mind) to the definition of a democracy....disagreement is a healthy component of it. Intolerance is a component of an autocracy. Should we not cherish disagreement.....is it not the primary fuel that drives this forum and makes it interesting? It saddens me to see threads closed because I often see the most interesting reading when opposing sides each have their backs against the wall and each with their wits at maximum. If a person in a thread becomes intransigent or stubborn to a reasonable argument, without a plausible rebuff, they should be asked to take 'time out' from that thread and come back in, if and when they have a more plausible response, rather than penalising EVERYBODY and shutting down the thread. I think it would be a better idea to remove the offending person(s) not the argument...Another poster may come in, at a later time, with a thoughful counter-argument (even contrary to the standard view) that is worth reading about. I also think sarcasm has no place in a forum of this nature and the 'roll eyes' (sarcastic) emoticon should be removed from the list to discourage it's use. A definition: sar·casm (särkzm) n. 1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. It is the lowest form of humour. "I'm still unclear about what you mean by "bullying behavior," and where or when this has happened."- iNOW 1.Forcefully imposing ones intellectual might in the face of another's innocent ignorance, such that they are lost, and cannot respond in like language...deliberately not speaking in the 'language' or understanding of the listener in such a way as to belittle them. . 2.Expressing ridicule. 3.Sarcasm These are all forms of bullying. In private, between individuals, cutting or negative comments, towards another, is not necessarily bullying but in the public arena of a forum... it is. A definition: "The act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do or think something." (emphasis is mine)

You have most likely pressed a key combination, whilst playing your game, that rotates the display. Try pressing CTRL+ ALT and one of the direction arrow keys. Failing this go into your graphics card's control panel and look for a 'rotate display' option.. it might be under the Advanced Settings tab. Failing this you could use the System Restore option in Windows and find a date to restore it back to just before it happened. Failing this you could uninstall the graphics driver and reinstall it. EDIT: If you go into the Windows Control Panel, select 'classic view' and you should see an icon for your graphics card where you should be able to access it's control panel..

I worked for a time in an egg processing factory. Visuaiise a conveyor 3ft wide and 30ft long with mixed, unsorted eggs passing down it. Perpendicular to this conveyor at equal intervals, running underneath there are 12 lanes to which a specified egg size would drop into and be deposited into an egg box or tray waiting underneath. At one end of each of these lanes is a denester where the egg boxes are loaded and at the other end is the packing person who puts them in to the boxes and pushes the filled box on to a conveyor and resumes to the next one. It is the job of the packer to inform the person on the denesters when they are down to the last three boxes of that run so the other side has time to change to the next order (Sainsbury's' Tesco's etc). On this particular day I was on the denesters loading them. Looking over to the other side a packer shouted "Last 3 boxes". I thought to myself, in jest: 'Last fifty boxes' and almost immediately a packer on the other side shouted, with a big grin on his face...." Last FIFTY boxes!" The odds on this happening felt, at the time, so improbable that involuntary telepathy was the only explanation. I put it down to incredible coincidence as this experience has not been repeated since. It was a real 'WOW' moment though!

" What do atoms have to do with life? That is my question."- Eric If life can exist distinct from atoms, as you propose, how do we detect this atom-free life form...do i feel a sense of deja vu...going round in circles? Science can only work from a foundation of verifiable evidence and standard methodology that can be repeated by anyone with the necessary knowledge. With this in mind, no one has ever discovered a 'living system' existing separately from atoms...have they? The point of the video that I linked you to was to help you see how life could begin. Can't you see that starting from a few simple reactions and interactions, these discrete molecular 'entities', gradually over time, build up increasingly complex layers of cyclical biochemical processes? There comes a point in this evolution where all the criteria that we define a living organism by, is fulfilled...at this point we can call it 'life' Outside of this forum we all hold our own beliefs, some of us may even be religious, but within the arena of this forum, which only builds on what is known, we must leave our unsubstantiated beliefs at home...I think this idea of yours is one of those. Scientific research tries to make hypotheses and evidence fit to a central body of knowledge, like adding a new piece to an imaginary incomplete bridge, on the side of a sheer cliff, that extends and leads us further into the unknown. Would you trust your belief in helping to build this bridge?

Three old dears overheard talking to each other: - " It's windy" - " No it's not, it's Thursday" - " So am I...let's go and have a cup of tea

These are the UMTS/HSPDA frequencies for broadband enabled phones. GSM can only handle voice, text and the original text based internet service as it has insufficient data bandwidth for transferring movies and images. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands

When we can change the the laws of Nature and the Universe at will or evolve, then we might have telepathic abilities ....in a million years or three. Seriously, notions and arguments for telepathic ability start from the premise of belief and not as a result of direct observation under scientific conditions with results that are statistically meaningful... as yet. Until this happens, in the eyes of mainstream science, it does not exist. That's the most accommodating science can be, at the moment, to the idea of telepathy. It is my opinion that much of this desire for paranormal phenomena to exist and the idea of spiritual selves etc stems from a deep dissatisfaction with what we have, what we know and our impending mortality ie ...there's GOT to be more than this. They appear to be symptoms of over- imaginative desperation. It is not my intent to ridicule since even the most rational and logical amongst us hold dear at least one irrational or illogical belief, outside the field of scientific debate. For instance, I won't catch a fish if I get my weighing scales out ready for it in anticipation!

That's ok....my pleasure. If you look at this immense flock of starlings closely, you will see the effect as a dark wave passing through the flock as they sequentially change direction...you might need to watch it a couple of times first to follow what's happening within the flock and find a 'leading edge' which is frequently changing position. I hope you can see it.

It might help us to visualise a solution better if you tell us what you need it for. What's the scenario?

It only looks instantaneous because our own visual response is so slow relative to theirs...if you slow the flocks/shoals movement right down you'll see the 'domino effect' pass through them following from the leading birds/fish. I've seen it on Nature programs several times demonstrating it.

I've found this that seems to support the wikipedia article linked by Mr Skeptic. It seems to show that rice contains melatonin which is capabe of binding to the receptor sites but does not indicate the amount one would need to eat to have the sleep inducing effect. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7773197

Expt1: I've just done 30 seconds each with a pair of scissors and a fork (S/Steel). The scissors did not spark and the fork did initially but stopped after 2 or 3 seconds. They were both quite hot to touch. Expt2: I left the fork 'cooking' for five minutes to let it get really hot..on the basis that the electrons needed more energy to start arcing but it didn't happen. I laid it on top of a plastic thermos cup which melted where the fork was in contact...gives you an idea how hot I got it! An aluminium ring-pull and small alumininium mitre block gave 'fireworks' almost immediately. I think, probably, the main basis for the microwave manufacturers blanket recommendations against using metal objects is that there are too many shapes and combinations of metal types to recommend its use in them. They are playing safe. Knowing what I know now about stainless steel, I still would not use it in a microwave because there maybe scenarios, I'm not aware of, that may be dangerous to the`appliance or myself.

Have you put a steel fork in the microwave...does this spark?

what about a Chimnea with copper pipe wrapped tightly around the 'chimney' part and a rubber hose from the feed attached,but not too close to melt it. The cleanest and hottest fuel is Anthracite nuggets..it's also the dearest. http://www.castironchimineas.co.uk/ EDIT: Wrapping the pipe around is easier said than done but but this idea might get the 'ball rolling' for you.

I found a link provided by D.H. in the Physics Forum (the other one) on this subject: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8631798/

On reflection, I agree it doesn't make sense (from a data security point of view) to tie your valuable data to a device that can't be detached from the computer. Yes, your knowledge is out of date Mokele (like mine was 'til last night!]. I haven't got the time now to provide the evidence but the best SSD's are designed to withstand the operating forces and reliability demands of tactical military aircraft pilots and drones, and their specs outstrip platter drives in every way except price / byte and absolute capacity. There Mean Times Before Failure (MBTF) rates, the number of times they can be written to before becoming unreliable, has apparently reached a level comparable to a platter based drives operating life...this issue has been their main sticking point. I'm going to stick one in my laptop!

You are probably right for the foreseeable future. I haven't looked into computer technological progress for a year or two so my eye is 'off the ball'...I just use them now.

I was being cautious in my prediction, but yes I think they will eventually be "cheap as chips" just like thumb drives are now since there aren't any moving parts, thus less human intervention in the manufacturing process compared to HD's. Intel have just moved to a 35nm process, from 50nm, so the new ones are faster and will be cheaper eventually. Currently £204 for the latest 80gb SSD (35nm process) from Intel. Reading about the progress towards smaller denser chips it still has another year or two, at least, of improvements left in the technology: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10307018-64.html I suppose the next logical step will be to make standard motherboards with SSD's welded on as one.

Solid State Digital drives haven't been taken up universally yet because their maximum capacities have been too low for everyday storage use in the average PC. A quick check reveals that a 64gb SSD can be bought for $165 for an eeepc, so it's just coming into the realms of having a usable capacity and being affordable. There were also one or two performance and reliability issues that precluded it's mainstream use before but they seem to have ironed them out. I found a 512gb unit so capacity is not an issue any more. I imagine SSD prices will fall substantially to mechanical hard drive levels, as take up increases, just like other PC components have in th past.

It's best to learn the conventional view of anything scientific here, understand it, THEN challenge it if you find an apparent anomaly or have an alternative hypothesis...don't forget, some of these scientists here are the bearers of hundreds of years of hard-earned research by past and living scientists...we amateurs are not, realistically, going to turn upside down an established Law or Theory with one 'lightbulb' moment are we? If we present an idea contrary to this convention, we must accept that they will try and rip it to pieces...this is the nature of science.

I think that same phenomenon is replicated all over G.B. at Christmas! It is`a useful substance to exploit when you have the odd bout of insomnia. I heat a mug of milk with a good amount of sugar and a minimal amount of coffee to give it a bit of taste...relaxes me enough to sleep.