iNow

I'm sure she wouldn't mind becoming a vegetarian for you, if she's not one already. Have fun, all. Sorry I can't join you for a whiskey and cigar.

Any measurement causes wave function collapse. The rest is semantics and philosophy (about whether or not observer must be "conscious"), and can safely be dismissed. This was covered recently and extensively over here (starting around post #7): http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41124

Did you hear that Jackson is going to be cremated? It turns out that once all of the plastic in his body melts, they're going to make toys out of it, and then kids will finally be able to touch and play with him instead of the other way around.

An article from Singh: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article6493564.ece Last year I published an article in The Guardian about chiropractors who claim to treat childhood conditions such as asthma, colic and ear infection. My views on that treatment clashed with those of the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) and it threatened to sue me for libel. Although The Guardian offered a right of reply, the dispute was not resolved and the BCA served proceedings. At this point, I could have backed down, apologised and paid a relatively small amount of damages. However, I believe that my article is important and covers a matter of public interest, so I have decided to fight the libel action. So far, standing by my article and fighting the case has taken up a year of my life and has cost £100,000; the battle could continue for another year, and final costs could exceed £500,000. It seems ridiculous that I should have to pay such vast amounts of money to defend an article about an important health issue. I am not alone: libel suits against scientists and science journalists are increasingly common. <...> There are several reasons the English libel system is unfair, but the greatest problem is that of costs. A report by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford University pointed out that the costs in defamation litigation are 100 times higher in England and Wales than most other European countries. Trials rarely cost less than £100,000 and often exceed £1m. Even if a journalist is convinced that an article is defensible, the risk of a poor judgment or losing on a technicality, with the ensuing financial disaster, is just too great to take. Therefore good journalists are forced to apologise and important articles are withdrawn. Worse still, journalists are increasingly likely to avoid investigating certain subjects for fear of a libel action. And it is not just individual journalists who feel intimidated, but also local and national newspapers. The result is that British readers do not get to hear the truth. <...> I should emphasise that we are not suggesting the concept of libel should be dropped; rather that other countries have quicker, fairer and more efficient libel processes and we should follow them. (Although already shared in the OP...) For those who agree that we should exercise better sense about science, and that the law has little (if any) place in disputes about evidence, please sign here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/about/326 We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence. The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media. Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views. English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the “libel capital” of the world. Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics. The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence. Signed Everyone below signed as an individual unless otherwise stated

Marcus - I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. Did you perhaps intend to use the word "lurking?" Anyway... Welcome.

That's a pretty broad question, and you should probably start with the wikipedia. Feel free to come back if you have something specific to ask. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion In short, it's a complex interplay of chemicals and neural signals.

The wiki article certainly answers your question more fully than we could. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox If you have a specific paradox in mind, or a specific question, then you should specify that for additional help.

If one were to guess, and speculate despite the fact this is clearly movie fantasy, I would suggest that they basically "fall out." The thing is that they are not really getting "wounded." If they were, then there would be demonstrable harm... yet, there is no harm, so it seems incorrect to suggest a wound. With that said, it's probably that the bullets enter and pass-through entirely, or the bullets enter, stop, then fall out of the hole they made when entering. How about this... Since we know it's based on fantasy, let's try to propose cool ideas on what might happen to those bullets. What are your thoughts? If this "speculation" among members here gains any traction, it might also be a good idea to move this thread to the forum dedicated to that, as opposed to biology.

I think they call that "homeopathy," except what you propose above is still too concentrated to be considered "good medicine" by that cult.

That would be rather silly, since evidence of her existence is readily available. In short, you've presented a false comparison, my good man.

A threat to crop yields could be argued on the basis of climate change, and in fact, already has. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/agriculture.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture From IPCC 2007: Recent studies indicate that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, creating the possibility for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case for subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Climate variability and change also modify the risks of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry. I now return you to the thread topic about why we're not smaller as a result of being shot at.

Externet - Was there some sort of problem with the other thread you opened asking this exact same question? http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41789

However... what you might do is get some high tech skin graft, or spray on dermal matrix to essentially heal the wound in such a short time. Not exactly what is being asked in the OP, but accomplishes a similar goal in a much more realistic way.

Sure. It's because the females are, in fact, selecting for the more dominant body type. In our society, the larger male is more prepared to acquire resources and protect kin. The benefit of this FAR outweighs the cost of being a slightly bigger target if ever shot at with a bullet. No.

If you have infinite time and infinite resources, then you can do damned near anything you want. If only wishes and dreams were true... but, they're not.

That depends almost entirely on the choice of the female. Right now, they tend to select for larger men, not smaller ones.

Folks should be careful about their haphazard use of the term "cycle." Just because climate varies does not mean it cycles. Chris had a nice post on these issues just yesterday. He says it much better than I can: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/cycles-projections-and-other-lingo/ 1) Cycles: This follows the traditional “we’re in a cycle” line of thought. The justification was essentially that warmer and colder times happened before, and the co-worker reminded me of the ice core bubbles showing ups and downs in the past. I’m pretty sure she was talking about Milankovitch variations over the last million years. The term “cycles” in thrown around very loosely in these kind of discussions. So a few pointers: The term “cycle” has a precise statistical meaning. Just because climate changed before doesn’t mean “it’s a cycle.” The sun has a very clear cycle of roughly 11 years corresponding to changes in solar output, day-night variations is a cycle, there is a seasonal cycle, but in fact true cycles which affect the climate of the planet are not very common. Milankovitch are probably quasi-cyclical, but also not relevant for modern global change. Cycles are real physical phenomena, and thus if they change the Earth’s climate they did it in some real way, which needs to be defined. Seasons for instance are caused by the tilt of the Earth and the motion around the sun, while day-night changes are caused by the Earth’s rotation. Just saying “it’s a cycle” is not very useful: does this cycle happen to deliver the Earth more solar output, how long is the cycle, etc? Humans are a new part of the equation. Life can influence the climate. Plants and other organisms took an entire deoxygenerated atmsophere and put oxygen in it making it suitable for the life we know today. There should be nothing mystical about humans being able to change the climate, particularly as it’s easy to monitor changes in atmsopheric chemistry throughpretty emissions. Timescale matters: Milankovitch cycles influence climate on timescales of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Day-night cycles influence people on timescales of many hours, while seasonal variations influence people on timescales of months. Forcings on climate need to be added, not replaced. Different things can change the climate. If multiple things are changing, then you need to add them up, not pick which ones you like. If the sun is going up and CO2 is going up, you can’t just say “it’s the sun” because “it’s natural” or you don’t like humans or you like big yellow balls of fire, or whatever else. The influence of CO2 is very well defined and can be calculated with high accuracy (for the technical folk I’m just talking about the RF here, not the feedback component), and thus no physical justification exists for blaming it solely on “cycles” when cycles could only be adding or subtracting from the human-induced part of it, not replacing what CO2 does. There are several other nice points at the link.

Yeah, except that, as a scientist, especially a proclaimed "authority," Paul Davies should know without a shadow of a doubt that "God" plays no role in science. The god concept has about as much to do with science as does the tooth fairy. Davies, being an advocate of creationism, loses a great deal of credibility. My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world. -- J.B.S. Haldane "Fact and Faith" (1934)

First, twitter is not just an american phenomenon, as evidenced by its recent usage among Iranian protestors. Second, I think that the OP should, in fact, be quite proud... Having started this thread more than 2 years ago. He was obviously WAY ahead of the curve on noticing this technology before pretty much anyone else, and deserves credit for that.

HMGIbOGu8q0

Which Bignose does with practically every single post he makes here. I strongly suggest that you are likely to find yourself clinging to the minority opinion if you dislike his methods.

This isn't a good approach, mate. If they've banned you, you should honor that and move on. Creating a new account will soon be found out, and you will simply again be banned. Don't bring others into the mess with you. If you absolutely cannot go another day without logging into their site, then create a new email account and login via an IP proxy. Again, it's not worth the trouble. [/MyTwoCents]

Or, maybe a neti pot. http://www.webmd.com/allergies/sinus-pain-pressure-9/neti-pots

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Do you have a reference? One would think that dropping honey in your nostril would further clog it, especially due to it's sticky and viscous properties.

Nice, and NO... it's not just an Aussie thing. We get all sorts of people advertising crap about which they know nothing. It's a strange phenomenon, indeed. Although, I can't say that I've ever seen a television ad for a particle accelerator... that was a pretty curious approach for the joke. You wrap the video ID into YouTube tags. So, the basic syntax is this: videoID # here So, using the video you shared as an example, the code would be: N_zbySqumaA ...and that would render thusly: N_zbySqumaA Cheers.