imatfaal

I think its a faked up scratching/mixing deck (with a guitar neck added on) that allows the dj to get into the video (dunno if that is Young MC or poss DMJ). The video is a piss-take/homage (del as applicable) of Robert Palmer Addicted to Love. Both great videos Theres a great view of it here in Funky Cold Medina at 1:12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OP5EnaaYjQ Pretty sure it's a faked up pretend instrument and still unsure who it is - DMJ (who did sampling and scratching on both) or Young Mc (who wrote/cowrote both)

The inverse seconds units can be thought of as (meters per meter) per second: ie a ratio of growth in size per second. The two length measurements are in the same units so they cancel out to leave only a ratio. Because the rate of growth is so small - most usage will be in kilometres growth per megaparsec per second; ie each second what was a megaparsec is increased by a kilometre.

Much against my normal judgment I just downloaded the first of the trilogy - based to a fair extent on your recommendation and that of another friend (who I thought should have known better) who said almost exactly the same thing!

Carmen McRae according to Soundhound - nice version. Better than Cher's - and I might even prefer it to Cilla's. OK Joatmon - you had Alfie a few moments ago - now its Gentle on my mind. So i will put your Alfie back

only a month or so late

today is a l r and vu sort of day

"Stuff" does not go at the speed of light - only massless particles go that fast Energy = Reduced Planck's Constant (h bar) times frequency: this is the energy of a photon - not to the best of my knowledge a spinning massive object. I would have assumed any massive object would have the mass as part of the equation - ie same/similar to the classical formula - Rotational Energy = 1/2 Moment of Inertia times the angular speed squared the planck length is just a term of measurement. I really would recommend re-reading the first few pages of this thread and then reading wikipedia on planck units.

From my basis knowledge the planck energy would be the energy equivalent of the planck mass (which is actually fairly big at 2.17x10-8 kg - an eyelash is about the same order of magnitude) and similarly from the energy time uncertainty principle it is hbar divided by the planck time. Your dimensions would not fit - energy does not equal distance cubed times velocity- the exact definition is here The planck scale is not entirely a boundary beyond which you cannot go - there are myriad examples of things smaller than the planck mass - it is scale of energies(very high), lengths(very small), times (very short) etc at which quantum field theory encounters problems due to the effects of gravity. The energies required to experiment at the planck scale are way beyond those we can create artificially. We can look at the fossil cosmology from the period after the big bang and use these remnants to try and understand what happened and more about sub-planck scale physics

Am I allowed to mention that I have no idea who JImmy Buffett is? (Well I do now, cos I just wikispied him)

I saw your replies from a year or so ago in Chemistry - thanks

Need a few more details to even speculate on this.

Way to go BC photographer!! And I am glad I could help. did you get to the cache or just decipher the message?

Have you tried just using a monoalphabetic substitution cipher? There seem to be about 23-25 different combinations - ie treat 444 as a single encoded letter. It is a nice variant on monoalphabetic if that is the case - the repeated digits immediately make you think that 3,33, and 333 must be connected in some way; but they could just be keying I, M, and A as an example. there are really good monoalphabetic substitution crackers available on the internet for download - I would give it a try, but I have just shifted to linux and I am having trouble with even the basics right now. Good indications of a monoalphabetic cipher are the number of different encoded bits (I think about right from a rough count), a characteristic distribution (any decent length normal english text will have around 12pct Es and definitely not all equal - again looks ok), an acceptable number of double letters, and very few triples (zoo opening before any one say no english word has a triple - spaces are very rarely encrypted) please let us know if you get any further

ermm... neutron perhaps

JC Don't think that Heseltine is dead btw. Here is a clip of him a few weeks ago - he does have mild rhotacism (hope this is correct spelling).

Great post - just one thing, Britain (the UK) IS a democratic country; just not a republic but instead a constitutional monarchy. And to answer Marat's original point generalisation of speech patterns in a country with such a wide spread of accents and dialects is very dangerous.

Godel Escher Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter

Just realised I have never put my name on the newbie list - Hello Everyone. I work in shipping in central London and wish I had continued my science education rather than defecting to the dark side.