dimreepr

I wonder if it’s related to a chimp display, essentially making lots of noise to impress the ladies, but as our intelligence grew and our language developed, maybe it’s a more refined version; noise level equals excitement level.

Maybe I should ponder this further and respond tomorrow? But for me; the more obvious the explanation is, the easier it is to explain. Perhaps a perspective provided by another member would help, who knows at this point?

To simply take the literal definition of the words: culture and bought, to extrapolate an answer, is in no way enlightening; have you misunderstood the question perhaps?

No, please explain?

Whilst reading this, very dubious thread, I was struck by the following question, so rather than hijack it, I’ll start another. Culture, is all encompassing for each and every one of us, our individual culture informs our every thought. Could an industry really be so powerful as to thwart that? Many try, via advertising, PR etc, but by how much do they really impact our lives, other than in a superficial way; do they go deep enough? The media would have us believe companies like Coke and McDonalds do so, on a daily basis, but, as they are a reflection/exaggeration of the existing culture; are they the informed or the informer? Could one company really become so ‘all encompassing’ in any one society as to directly inform the indigenous culture or is this just fodder for science fiction writers?

This design seems vulnerable to forward collapse, especially with a lot of grip on the top surface; maybe using lots more screws than you think sensible would solve the potential problem. Edit/ or using thicker supports

Read this, @Arjun Deepak Shriram how exactly do you get this ‘do from an is’?

Maybe, but don't forget, distance is relative...

The problem with a great idea derived in a pub is twofold, firstly, the idea is probably not that great and secondly the expression of that idea is probably not that well expressed (the odd pint or two is probably responsible). To clarify my question, the POV of the observer means increments would be measureable, my question, however, is from the POV of the traveller; wouldn’t any speed greater than c mean an instantaneous journey for said traveller?

Let us suppose the speed of light isn’t insurmountable, would superluminal travel have increments? As in star trek ‘warp speed 9’ and so on, or would any trip at superluminal velocities be instantaneous? Using the train analogy to describe time dilation, the photon has to travel further and therefore time runs slower relative to the observer, extending this analogy, when travelling at superluminal speeds light would never catch up, hence instantaneous.

The most obvious and perhaps easiest solution would be to attach the plank to the left edge of the stairs via hinges and simply fold away when not required.

That reminds me. Why do homeopaths always go to heaven? St Peter figures they’re close enough.

I think litmus is applying for resident troll status; having read his other threads, it’s the only conclusion I could come up with.

You would only take a pendulum/force meter if you suspected you were being duped otherwise it would be relatively easy to fake the plane ride itself, without the need to immerge in a different airport (though given the relative uniformity of a lot of airport interiors not unworkable unless you go outside). Certainly within the budget of the BBC, providing it is entertaining enough. The unsuspecting dupe would turn up at an airport and be ushered into a plane like environment attached to a simulator, the night time graphics would be relatively easy to simulate to someone unsuspecting. The only foreseeable problem is if the dupe is a frequent flyer that could tell the difference between simulated acceleration and the real stuff; most of us probably couldn’t. As to creating a Truman type simulation indoors ok, outside no way.

“God is the sum of all that exists” We all know the answer to this sum, 42 of course... As a side note I’d like to suggest a variance to Godwin’s law ‘Give any religious thread long enough and somebody will quote Douglas Adams’ I win

I’ve ridden almost everything from a 50cc peddle moped that could barely attain 30mph to a 1000cc sports bike with 145bhp that could reach well into 190’s mph and I’ve enjoyed every single mile. I thought I’d start this thread for my fellow enthusiasts; Let me know your likes, dislikes and any anecdotes you’d care to share. My best bike was my Triumph 675 Daytona, very light and quick with excellent handling, awesome through the twisty lanes in my native Gloucestershire; it never failed to put a smile on my face. My worst was a Chinese built 125cc 4 stroke gutless wonder (the wonder was it made it the 6 miles to work each day), almost every bolt needed tightening even the spokes (almosted crashed before I discover that). When I started riding I had a 125cc scrambler that had such bad lights that one foggy night I rode through a field for almost half a mile before noticing, it was a lane that had a 90 degree bend that I failed to see, lucky the gate was left open.

Science = The Black Hole War - Leonard Susskind Science fiction = The Foundation series - Isaac Asimov and The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy – Douglas Adams Serious fiction = Les Miserables - Victor Hugo Comedy fiction = Discworld series – Terry Pratchett These are my favourites ATM many more on the shortlist and due to my fickle nature will probably be different next week or, indubitably, my next change of mood/underwear.

I suggest you read ‘Down and out in Paris and London’ by George Orwell and/or ‘The Pearl’, ‘Cannery Row’ and/or ‘Sweet Thursday’ by John Steinbeck these books propose, the liberating nature of extreme poverty. I personally think there are far more, psychiatric, problems created by a surplus of money.

It’s well known that the heart contains neurons, a type called ‘neuro-myo-cytes’ that enables the heart to work independent of the brain, however the heart and the brain do have some connection/interaction. There is a lot of, admittedly anecdotal, evidence that propose a personality can change when a heart is transplanted. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1299456 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/03/dick_cheney_heart_transplant_can_a_new_heart_change_your_personality_.html http://theophanes.hubpages.com/hub/Cellular-Memories-in-Organ-Transplant-Recipients http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8084936.stm So my question, can the heart have a minor, major or decisive role in the decision processes of the brain?

The Jesuit saying "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" pretty much sums it up for me and let’s be honest how many are brought up in an entirely secular environment? So we generally see that most/all have at least questioned the idea of a god. I think your idea is just an extension of a natural superstitious inclination, one that we share with many other animals.

In some respects I agree with you, in that, a large number of people are somewhat detached from the realities of killing and eating animal flesh, and that this detachment allows some companies methods of husbandry to become dubious (to say the least) and cruelty follows. Unlike you, though, I think people need only be educated in the realities; rather than forced to do without an important foodstuff. Split Infinity’s point, although laudable (in a way), is just not feasible certainly not for all (especially here in the UK) and hunters definitely don’t have exclusivity in the knowledge and empathy of the sacrifice made to enable humans to eat meat. Knowing a number of hunters of a like mind doesn’t show that all hold the same views ergo hunting, is no guaranty of an ethical approach. As to your questions: 1 This has already been debated in this thread and renders the question somewhat moot. 2 Again this question is moot as the majority are unable due to regulations. 3 What animal, including humans, has a free life? Question, again moot.

I have a smallholding on which I have 4 pigs, 12 geese, 10 ducks and 9 chickens, it was 10 chickens but we had a visit from the local fox. I guess the fact that the fowl are killed by me means, by your standard, I can go ahead and eat them, thanks. Unfortunately by this same standard I’m unable to eat the pork, regulations demand the pigs are sent to the abattoir for dispatch. By all means please protest any and all cruelty you find few here would argue against that, I for one would join you, but to argue that eating meat, unless killed personally, automatically results in cruelty/torture is not justified and insults those that run a farm designed with animal care in mind.

‘DevilSolution’ You continue to use the very emotive term ‘murder’, not only, incorrectly but it is as previously stated a strawman, please stop. In your post #28 you ask “if you was a cow what would you want to do?” what you seem to not appreciate is what the animals get from the relationship: Security from predation (if you want a definition of ‘cruelty’ watch a pack of wolves take down an elk), guaranteed food supply, shelter from the extremes of winter and a guaranteed health program. Farmers, at least the dozen or so that I know, would be extremely upset at your line of argument and casual generalizations of cruelty and murder, they all take great pride in their husbandry skills and the strides, both they and governments take in order to alleviate cruelty and develop every more humane ways to dispatch livestock. Nobody in this thread has suggested cruelty doesn’t exist, we’ve all seen the videos of malpractice in the farming world, but these are the extreme and most governments are trying to regulate against such practices. It’s like arguing “because some people drive recklessly cars should be banned”.

This question is indeed an ethical minefield, on one hand we have a huge industry that is profit driven and needs regulation, on the other hand we have a huge domesticated animal population that couldn’t possibly just be left to their own devices. When we develop a more practical alternative to meat, the domesticated animal population can be reduced to a sustainable level. Social pressure and generational trends will take care of those who are reluctant to try the alternatives. In the meantime we can do little else but do as the EU tries to do and regulate the industry to minimise cruelty.

Show some/any evidence that this assertion has any validity. Good luck.