tomgwyther

This one's for the keep net. I'm tempted to start write a book "Odd things said on SFN" So many Questions 7th. Who originally wrote this? "Mass genocide is one way to achieve an orgasm," Is it? did Hitler, Pol Pot Stalin etc fill their pants more frequently than less genocidal persons? "unfortunately not everyone enjoys murder."... Unfortunately... should it really be fortunate to enjoy murder? "orgasm so powerful that will make you feel like a juggernaut." Heavy goods vehicles are the furthest thing fro my mind during orgasm, Maybe I should murder a few people to get that freight vehicle feeling. Sex is for children, umm, no it isn't. "semen is very nutritious when eaten." is it eaten or drunk? If it's so nutricious, why don't we see Ken Hom whacking-off into his hot wok? "women who eat semen everyday will become a powerful vampire" What about lesbian vampires? Why the dancing girl video in that other post?

Throughout most of human history, we've been hunter-gathers. So, I'd imagine we'd very quickly return to living like cave men.

One of the best forms of wealth distribution I've come across, is sort of 10% function of the lowest paid and highest paid employee of a company, that is: If the lowest paid employee of a company earns say 10,000 PA, then the highest paid employee - usually the CEO - could only earn a maximum of 100,000 PA. This would (I believe) redistribute wealth whilst still leaving capitalist ideas somewhat intact. The company would still have incentive to increase it market share, employee would still have incentive to work harder/better so as to be promoted to a higher paying job. Those at the top would still get more than those at the bottom. The directors and bosses could increase their salary if they wished, but would have to increase the salaries of all their employees. If the company made a huge profit, the boss could increase his salary and get that yacht he's always wanted whilst the lower level employee would get a similar pay rise. Or the profit could be invested back into the company by hiring more people, investing in new infrastructure etc.

It looks like a cross between the Stig and a power ranger. cool robot.

Going back to the same ol' same ol' whilst composing is a problem all composers face. Think of music as language. The words you know; the better you can express yourself. Similarly in music, the more chords, scales, changes you know, the more original your compositions are likely to be. As aj47 mentioned, learn a bit of theory. You needn't get heavily engrossed in music theory, but it help to know how all the scales, chords etc relate to each other. Rather like a top chef knows which ingredients work well together. Reverse engineering A quick, easy and fun way to learn about these relationships (A method I sometimes teach to my students) is to put on your favourite music, and reverse engineer it. that is, work out what the melody is, what the chords are, how they fit together. Do this with a few pieces of different genres and a picture of all those relationships will emerge. If your good at playing by ear - and most people are - you should find this quite easy. if you do this for many years - as I have- you develop a 6th sense for it. some artists: I've transcribed their work so many times, when they come out with a new song, I get automatically know which chord is coming next as I've reverse engineered so much of their other stuff. Two I worked on recently were: Madonna's - take a bow. And Cheryl Crow's - Tomorrow never dies. They're more complex than they sound, but after you've worked out how they were put together, you'll find you'e gained new insight into some writing. have a go at them. Hint: take a bow starts (A flat + 2) then (G flat minor 6 with a flat 5th)(F minor 7th)(E 6 flat 5) or Ab Bb C Eb Gb Bb C Eb F Ab C Eb E Ab Bb Db Three notes As well as gaining idea from other people songs: A simple way to come up with ideas is to pick three notes... any three notes, preferably within one or two octaves and then move one note at a time. e.g. C E G then DEG then DEA then DGA etc. Every so often you'll hit upon a change which sounds good. write it down and keep going until you have the structure of a song. Sonic inspiration If yo have access to an electronic keys board, or you've rigged a keyboard to a computer, then try playing around with different sounds. occasionally I'll use a new sound and new ideas come along automatically. there are some really weird and wacky sounds out there. Similarly, if you hear a beat, ideas come to you as your effectively working with another person. The best songs are written as a group effort, not by individuals locked in a room. I wrote a whole song by listening to this guy and playing piano along to his drumming. Have a go Bernard Purdy New instrument Pick up an instrument you wouldn't normally play, and try writing a song. the lack of familiarity with it will mean you'll do things you wouldn't other wise do. I've come up with ideas whilst messing around with a guitar, accordion, bass etc. Drugs Drugs and alcohol do not make you play better. Record yourself playing piano after you've have a few drinks (Or what ever) then listen back to it the next morning. Being a bit intoxicated can give you the opportunity to write new material, as you're less inhibited. I've written some great stuff whist sat in the studio till 4:00 drinking with other musicians, you need to be sober to get it into a cohesive song though. Hypnosis as far as hasn't been used effectively to make musicians more creative, although giving your brain a rest every once in a while does. I normally practice for about two hours a day, if I have a few days off, I find I'm out of practice but may come up with a new melody or chord arrangement. Try out some of the techniques above and let us know how you get on

True, it could go either way. I'm leaving up to the (hypothetical) jury to decide. The above would be the case I would put forward if I were the prosecution. I would also have put your case forward had I been arguing for the defence. It's an interesting case; I enjoyed the discussion very much. I've also been reading some of your other postings. it's nice to lock horns with a good intellect whom forces me to think and/or rethink ideas. Any other thought experiments you have knocking-about would be fun to discuss too.

Under UK law, a person's silence can be used to infer guilt in some cases. You're not allowed to 'take the 5th'. i.e. Prosecution: Would you disagree that the CCTV footage of you running down the street waving a sword and shoughting, looks like you and was indeed you? Accused: Remains silent Prosecution: Then I take it from your silence that you do not disagree. If twin A knew that twin B was intent on murder and simply went along with it whilst twin B obtained the knife, went to the victims house and committed the act, and he didn't take any action to prevent this from happening; he failed to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised, then Twin A is negligent. Moreover, criminally negligent. Clamming up or prevarication wouldn't do him any favours either. I'd also argue that by allowing such acts, Twin A was a danger to the public. Then it would be up to the jury to decide woe betide any conjoined twins who come near me wielding cutlery!

On the subject of "The myth of private property" For the most part, private property is some what of a myth. [in the UK at least] If you were wondering who owns your car, try not buying a tax disc for it; you'll find out quite quickly who owns it. you must pay for the privilege of having a car. The DVLA openly state that they have the power to take away and crush your car. Since one cannot lawfully crush what one does not lawfully own, they must assume ownership. Hence your V5C document states that your are the cars 'keeper', not the owner. Moreover, not paying for the right to own property will land you in similar Schick, The government can and do make compulsory purchases of land. The money you have in the bank isn't yours either, it is merely the bank's liability to you (Icelandic savings account anyone?) The money supposedly in your account is actually the bank's money, they might not be able to give it back, unless the bank is saved by the taxpayer or lender of last resort. lamentably, the money in your pocket isn't really yours either. almost all money is owed to the bank as it is created as bank credit under the borrowers pledge to repay it. “That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.” Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman and Governor of the Federal Reserve Board "If all the bank loans were paid, no one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash, or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless situation is almost incredible -- but there it is." Robert Hemphill. Credit Manager, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta "I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that banks can and do create money ...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people" Reginald McKenna, past Chairman of the Board, Midlands Bank of England But hay-ho, look on the bright side, it's not all bad. Once you realise it all B******S you can actually live a very rich and fulfilling life. I'm off to the pub to exchange some bits of coloured linen-paper for some yummy beer.

I think if I were the judge, I'd seek to prosecute both twins. Although joint enterprise would require that both twins were involved in the planning of the crime, I would put the burden of proof on the 'innocent' twin to prove that he had no foreknowledge of his brother's intent whatever. That the innocent twin showed consent for the actions of his brother. If I were the prosecuting lawyer, I might bring up either a case of Inadvertent negligence or Passive negligence against the non-stabbing defendant. Either way, I think I'd err on the side of caution and prosecute a potentially innocent but negligent individual, on the grounds that his conjoined twin was a danger to the public. It's still a very tricky case and has seen me with my nose in a big fat law dictionary this evening. Without more specifics, it's difficult to make a good judgement. BTW. Is the a real case Marat as your post infers? I'd love some more info on it; it sounds fascinating. Inadvertent negligence. Negligence in which the actor is not aware of the unreasonable risk that he or she is creating, but should have foreseen and avoided it Passive Negligence. Negligence resulting from a person's failure or omission in acting. From Black's Law Dictionary: 8th edition

Hmm tricky. In the murder case you mentioned: under UK law, it might be considered a case of 'Joint enterprise' Lets assume one twin fatally stabbed an individual. The other twin would share liability in that he/she did nothing to prevent this from happening. Although the unarmed twin may not have had an intent to kill, their complacency at the time would mean they were guilty of the same crime as the armed twin. This law of joint enterprise was in the news recently in the UK, where a gang of youths harassed another boy, the gang all knew that some of its members carried knives. The boy was fatally stabbed by one gang member, but when it came to trail, all of them (About 5) were prosecuted for the same crime. Similarly, if a group of people rob a bank at gun point and one of them kills the bank teller, the whole group - getaway driver and all - would be prosecuted for the same crime(s) i.e. robbery, murder etc.

Mostly for the Brits on this forum: Has anyone received a letter from an organisation called SPUC? (Society for the protection of unborn children.) I have, and found it utterly abhorrent. I have attached a copy of the letter and my response to it below. If you have received such a letter and are a disgusted as I was, please let me know. I'm writing to the charity itself ad the Information commissioners office to get something done about this. Thanks Dear John Smeaton / SPUC Thank you for you letter Ref: PR46C / P 40773 / SARs3. Firstly I would like to know exactly how you obtained my name and address, without my consent or knowledge, moreover, without my explicit agreement. It is evident that the data protection act 1998 may have been breached to my detriment. This is an offence I take very seriously and intend to follow up. Your letter also ‘thanked me’ for signing SPUC’s petition against abortion advertising on television. I wish to make it very clear that I have never signed, nor have a supported SPUC. If a document has been signed (as is expressed in your letter) in my name then it is a forgery and in contradiction of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. I intend to investigate both of these apparent breaches of the law and reserve the right to seek prosecution of any person, organization or legal personality which I feel has acted in a way which is detrimental to my person or me as an individual. I also find the language used in your letter unnecessarily vile and repugnant, and in some cases misleading, deceptive, untrue and - to be frank – unintelligible. I know first hand; the emotions involved during the abortion procedure and feel your letter treated me (and presumably many like me) with contempt and disdain. I find this unacceptable. You advocate that women should be forced by law to have a child against their will, I have never met a woman of sound mind who would agree with this dictatorial despotic idea. Your dogmatic arrogance should have no place in an intelligent, civil society. I accept the motto that everyone is entitled to there own opinions and beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts. A collection of non-sentient cells with no nervous system is not by any definition a human being. If it’s deemed to have the potential to be one, then so would millions of sperm/eggs have such potential and yet, they die with no interest in their plight. Of the millions of unloved, uncared for orphans around the world who desperately need parents; to force women who have become pregnant either through contraceptive failure, rape or shear ignorance, to have children who they don’t want, cannot afford, cannot raise seems unintelligible, ill-conceived and just plain evil. Making abortion against the law would deny women the right to what happens to their own body and may result in DIY abortions, the horrific consequences of this don’t even bear thinking about. Avocation of something which could bring about this scenario seems wrong. Our human population is increasing exponentially; it will be within my life time that we reach the planets carrying capacity. That is, the ability to provide enough resources to maintain a reasonable standard of living for everyone (Approx 9 billion). Already we are seeing signs of this critical capacity being reached, where approximately 25000 people die every day due to lack of food and medicine. Education, contraception and the right to have an abortion are all crucial to alleviating this population growth problem which we are faced with. (6.6 billion currently, Approx 9.7 Billion by 2050. It may seem cold to look at humanity as statistics and numbers, but there it is. Either we make efforts now, or millions of innocent, already born people will die in pain and abject misery. It is a stark fact that we must deal with now. Yours sincerely Tom Gwyther

Reminds me of this quote from Epicurus, esp line two and three Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The most common bumper stickers / rear-of-car signs which I see in the UK are the born again Christian fish or it's opposite; the Darwin fish, or FSM emblem.

Ahh, such enthusiasm so young; It's a great thing. In short, spend as much time as you can in libraries and book shops - and of course - discussing your ideas and aspirations on SFN. I'm guessing your from the USA, so I'm not entirely sure how free education is over there. There's a vast difference between schooling and education. I - for one- educated myself in science over the last 15 years by browsing libraries and bookshops to find what interested me most. Schooling for me, was just somting to be got out of the way. After that I worked at the university of Portsmouth as well as being a professional touring musician. From which I gained an education. Try not to see a degree or PhD as an accolade to which you must aspire; rather as a marker or flag point which reflects your accademic achievent.

Clinker is burned coal. what do you propose to do with it? clink·er (klngkr) n. 1. The incombustible residue, fused into an irregular lump, that remains after the combustion of coal. 2. A partially vitrified brick or a mass of bricks fused together. 3. An extremely hard burned brick. 4. Vitrified matter expelled by a volcano

What exactly is the Thrust Generator you've mentioned? presumably, if it's generating thrust, it is using energy from somewhere.

Apologies, I was away from my post for a while, It's proved quite popular. The original post is essentially a polite ask that those putting forward ideas of a speculative nature (including but not exclusively: God, Gods, ESP, telekinesis, supernatural stuff, metaphysical continuums etc) Would elaborate on their ideas more, as would be expected in any of the other SFN forums, and as is generally good practice in a healthy debate. Quite often, someone will put forward an idea "I believe X is true" without going into any detail and without fielding questions about their hypothesis. My original post is to ask that there be clarification of concept in any idea put forward. The simplest and most ubiquitous would be the belief in a supernatural agent or agents, so, to clarify that concept; "To which supernatural agent are you referring?" seems a legitimate question to ask in order for a progressive debate to take place. e.g "I believe God created the world" "To which God are you referring?" "The Christian God" Already, those involved in the discussion have an idea of the type of God being discussed. Or "I believe God created the world" "Which God?" "Allah" Again we have an idea as to what's being talked about. both examples refer to a monotheistic supernatural agent with an active interest in us. Or "I believe God created the world" "Which God?" "A deistic God" Now we know that a supernatural agent is involved in the debate, but his/her role in it has drastically changed, A deistic God 'Sets the ball rolling' an then has nothing to do with the concerns of people on Earth. After we have established what the original poster means by the term God, the debate can move on. e.g. "I believe God created the world" "Which God?" "Brahma" Now we know we're in the area of a single creator in a polytheistic overview. "Why do you hold this view?" "I see creation of the conscious soul as inexplicable by science, and so created via supernatural means" "Would you describe the working of the natural world in a similar way?" "Yes, hence my belief in Vishnu, the God of maintenance, moreover my belief in Siva, the God of destruction" And so on and so forth. Once we know the poster's interpretation of God, - or their idea on what-ever subject - the debate can move forward. The opposite of these would go something like this: "I think Daffodils have souls and can talk to us, if only they could harness the power of dark matter black holes." "Why do you think this?" "I just do, because I do." "Can you elaborate?" "No because I didn't go to a posh university, the Daffodil thing is my belief and you're insulting me to question it." "Why are you linking Flowers to dark matter?" "Because flowers are made of matter, you're the scientist,you figure it out. No body understands me." And so on and so forth until the thread gets closed, users get banned or suspended, no-one is any the wiser for it.

You're right John. From Poe's to Godwin's law in two posts... that's got to be a record! My wit is dry, even by British standards. Though I do still feel that more clarity is needed in propositions put forth in the religion forum. I'm flattered that Rigney considers me intellectually superior to himself, or anyone else for that matter. I've never considered myself superior or inferior to other people I personally find intellectual inferiority/superiority an abstraction of a person's true character.

Of late there have been many topics concerning the nature and existence of a supernatural deity whom either has exerted or still does exert some influence over the universe and untimately ourselfs. Most recently, pictures set to music and the behaviour of aquatic mammals have been put forth as assertions or hypotheses to support the idea of divine intervention. In the interests of scientific endeavour and to move such hypotheses forward - past the first hurdle - I would like to ask that those making such claims, or putting forward ideas of this nature, plus choose which deity they are refering to. I have compiled a list of major deistic figures to help people to move their argument forward. Agdistis Ah Puch Ahura Mazda Alberich Allah Amaterasu An Anansi Anat Andvari Anshar Anu Aphrodite Apollo Apsu Ares Artemis Asclepius Athena Athirat Athtart Atlas Baal Ba Xian Bacchus Balder Bast Bellona Bergelmir Bes Bixia Yuanjin Bragi Brahma Brigit Camaxtli Ceres Ceridwen Cernunnos Chac Chalchiuhtlicue Charun Chemosh Cheng-huang Cybele Dagon Damkina (Dumkina) Davlin Dawn Demeter Diana Di Cang Dionysus Ea El Enki Enlil Eos Epona Ereskigal Farbauti Fenrir Forseti Freya Freyr Frigg Gaia Ganesha Ganga Garuda Gauri Geb Geong Si Hades Hanuman Hathor Hecate (Hekate) Helios Heng-o (Chang-o) Hephaestus Hera Hermes Hestia Hod Hoderi Hoori Horus Hotei Huitzilopochtli Hsi-Wang-Mu Hygeia Inanna Inti Iris Ishtar Isis Ixtab Izanaki Izanami Jesus Juno Jupiter Juturna Kagutsuchi Kartikeya Khepri Ki Kingu Kinich Ahau Kishar Krishna Kuan-yin Kukulcan Lakshmi Liza Loki Lugh Luna Magna Mater Maia Marduk Mars Mazu Medb Mercury Mimir Minerva Mithras Morrigan Mot Mummu Muses Nammu Nanna Nanna (Norse) Nanse Neith Nemesis Nephthys Neptune Nergal Ninazu Ninhurzag Nintu Ninurta Njord Nugua Nut Odin Ohkuninushi Ohyamatsumi Orgelmir Osiris Ostara Pan Parvati Phaethon Phoebe Phoebus Apollo Pilumnus Poseidon Quetzalcoatl ama Re Rhea Sabazius Sarasvati Selene Shiva Seshat Seti (Set) Shamash Shapsu Shen Yi Shiva Shu Si-Wang-Mu Sin Sirona Sol Surya Susanoh Tawaret Tefnut Tezcatlipoca Thanatos Thor Thoth Tiamat Tianhou Tlaloc Tonatiuh Toyo-Uke-Bime Tyche Tyr Utu Uzume Venus Vesta Vishnu Volturnus Vulcan Xipe Xi Wang-mu Xochipilli Xochiquetzal Yam Yarikh Yhwh Ymir Yu-huang Yum Kimil Zeus A typical post might read something like this: "I believe that love cannot be explained by nuero-chemichal processes alone, I therefore have reason to asert that Aphrodite may help to explain logically or empirically how such emotional states occur."

This banning of certain items of clothing is madness gone politically correct. The whole idea is so laughable; that there is now a Frence fashon police telling people what not to wear. One thing I admire about the French is that if a law is introduced which they disagree with, the people simply ignor it en-masse, thus making it unenforceable. The French also have a reputation for removing the heads of those in power whom they dislike... Tread carefully French legislators. Hopefully they'll have the common sense to ignor this law intirely. While they're at it, could they ban French students who are visiting England, from clogging up buses and stairwells with their massive, multi-coloured back-packs?

That's what I was looking for I couldn't quite see it as half the text doesn't display i.e. I can only see the top half of the text. thanks. 11 out of 10 on the new look site guys.

There used to be a 'get all new posts' button at the top which I used on every visit to see what had been posted regardles of which specific forum it ws in. Is it no longer a feture of the new SFN? I always found it very useful; everything in one place and in chronological order. Other than that, I'm loving the new look SFN, the new logo aint too bad either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternocleidomastoid_muscle The SCM moves your head around. Here'a a wikipedia link about it with lots of interesting information, including... Creature designers often include the sternocleidomastoid muscle in models of alien characters when they want them to seem attractive and familiar to human viewers due to the muscle's uniqueness as a mammalian feature.

If you're in Windows you can mute individual sound sources. Right click the little speaker on the task bar, open volume control, then options/properties. make sure the 'playback check box is checked, then mute either 'wave synth or wave, or MP3 and or midi. sites generally have either a wav file, an Mp3 file or a midi sequence as their background music. Don't forget to unmute them if yu want to listen to wave, MP3 or MIDI.

Speldosa: the video I posted isn't an fMRI scan. the images are created by measuring the electrical activity over the cerebral cortex.