Hal.

Did anybody see Mike Tyson chewing the ear of Evander Holyfield . If ever there was a great attempt at cannibalism , this must be it .

Written agreements are the way to go if you end up in court ! You should watch Judge Judy in case you don't know , she is a famous 21st century philosopher of almost trivial U.S. court cases and has a following of countless millions in Europe .

I would suggest independent behaviour . If you are happy with your conditions , that is what matters to you . If you want to encourage others to also have independent behaviour about what matters to them to improve their conditions , then do that . Obviously in the interests of not having the same argument over and over again , everybody could be happy if some things were agreed unanimously with the employers .

My first math teacher put gold stars in the answer book when I had a good answer at school . But , at 5 years of age I couldn't have really given a **** !

What a.n.other wants in terms of energy usage and what a.n.other needs should be given different priorities . If a.n.other needs energy to cook to make food safe this should be a higher priority than giving a.n.other enough energy to watch a porn movie .

http://www.centrica.com http://www.centrica.com/index.asp?pageid=923

Find a nice little interpreter with a few sample programs in a language like C that is suited to your computer .

Dekan , Base 4096 would be simple to use and simple to represent symbolically because these would be the pre-requisites for it's global use .

For comparison , I think that water in a lake has properties of a cloud while not being a cloud . I also think that a wooden table has properties of a tree while not being a tree . So , I can see this viewpoint as an explanation . But , I would also suggest it possible that Ernest Rutherford had another meaning for radio-active .

In his book , Radio-Activity , 2nd ed. 1905 , E Rutherford , MacDonald Professor of Physics , McGill University , Montreal , Canada , clearly states while writing about Radium , Thorium and Actinium , that , " the emanations from the three active bodies all possess similar radio-active properties " .

Post acknowledged biojay99 .

Fuck off !

Granpa , do you have evidence that there isn't ? In a few peoples opinions then is there one ?

This thread is not only for those who wish to agree with each other . It is for everybody who wants to make a post . I will not discuss anything with the ' usual suspects '.

Do*s Cen***sh*p **ss yo* O**?

Are scientists afraid to give their opinions in science because they don't want to be seen to go against the ' knowledgeable ' crowd ? Is this preventing the exploration of new idea's ? This is an open thread but it may be better if the ' usual suspects ' kept their opinions to themselves . I will not reply to any poster who has previously engaged in disputed discussion with me .

Look , insane alien , you couldn't handle a vulgar conversation with me , I would soon be banned from the site and you would probably be the lick arse that got administrators to do it .

Insane_alien , This is scientific debate at the highest level , your pollution of slang is unwarranted . Certainty is 100% , that is why it is called certainty . It would be wise to decipher the praise of my comments in previous posts . Insane Alien , In Ireland only pussies say dick , men say Bollox !

An accumulation of errors is the point , swansont .

The reason scientists want to use less than 100% proof is that they want to be happy in the thinking that they are correct while always leaving another option open , just in case .

If science is never that sure of anything , Klaynos , science is all theory and no fact .

But if a person calculated an answer to a problem as being 2.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991 the likelihood is that they would round it to 3 and then assume that 1 + 1 + 1 = what they calculated .

Choose an answer ! If 350 people who are physicists , chemists , mathmaticians and the cleaning lady see a professor writing on the board with a piece of chalk , is testimony from each and every one of these people enough evidence to say the professor moved the piece of chalk , 100% proven motion ? It is not a trick question , it is a question of what the requirements are for 100% proof and it is noted that some people have answered ' no ' to the previous form of this question and others think there is no such thing as 100% proof .

2.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991 is not equal to 2.9999999999.......................recurring I put 2.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991 in the original post because I was asking if it would be an alternative correct answer to the question , is 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 ? Thus giving , is 1 + 1 + 1 = 2.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991 ?

Let's assume there is an accelerometer on the chalk and one on the professor too . Eyewitness testimony of 350 physicists , mathmaticians , chemists and the cleaning lady says that the professor moved the piece of chalk across the blackboard to graphically represent his thoughts . It is on camera , there is sound evidence of a screeching board , the chalk is being transferred to the board . Is this 100% proven that motion has taken place ? I do recognise some people have said ' no ' .