Delbert

Nothing to do with it. We humans tell stories to each other. Stories which give us a fellow feeling, encouraging individuals to work together as a team to achieve a common end - tribal. Put simply, working as a team to survive. Such stories may be true and based on fact or may be total fiction - the later being probably more common. Fact or fiction it doesn't matter, as long as it instigates a fellow feeling to enable a group effort to work as a team.

I wouldn't jump on you from a great height. Although I'd say there is something there, possibly a maelstrom of interactions, which I think is what Feynman's diagrams suggest. Leaving what we describe as a photon to be nothing more than an event at the destination following an event at the source, with a maelstrom of interactions, of who knows what, in between. And if we try to detect the thing in flight, all we are do is create another pair of events (with a maelstrom in between).

Space-time according to Einstein. .

I said to my understanding, If you say it doesn't then it doesn't. I just added that to my comments about propagation speed or the need for a propagation speed. But as for your claim that it's massless, from a purely theoretical position it seems a bold statement to make. Because it says that it can't have any mass whatsoever: like not even 1 preceded by ten million noughts of a gram - or any other greater number of noughts. I'd have thought it's better to say: zero mass as far as we can tell with current technology.

Yep. If actions and reactions were somehow instantaneous it would require an infinite amount of energy - which is clearly ludicrous. An infinite amount of energy on the simple premise that such an instant action or reaction would require an infinite field of (say) gravity that extends throughout the universe to move all at once. As said, to move such an boundless field all as one entity would clearly require the ludicrous situation of an infinite amount of energy. From what I understand this was first realised by James Clark Maxwell, and provided the mathematics of propagation. Which (my maths is nowhere good enough) I understand amounts to the speed of a massless particle. Light, I further understand, isn't entirely massless, so it travels ever so slightly slower than such a speed, but it's a very tiny difference.

And you can get nice red or blue LED ones now!

Well, from what I understand from media reports, it can last some time outside the body on items touched. As for your remark about it not being clear how the nurse became infected, I think it can be said that notwithstanding all precautions and wearing isolation clothing she became infected. And according to reports she isn't the only member of medical staff to be so infected. If that's not seriously infectious, I don't know what is.

That's one of the aspects that baffles me. Ebola is apparently so infectious that a nurse reportedly caught it by touching her face with her glove whilst disrobing, and yet the authorities seem quite prepared to have possible infected individuals walking through an airport arrival lounge. And direct airport staff to deal with them by taking their temperature. Looking at the pictures on the media, testing is done by someone wearing a bog standard while coat and mouth mask and pointing an object at the passenger! And noticed a media report that a UN medical worker has just died after coming into contact with an infected individual. We're talking about a highly infectious and incurable infection with death being the almost certain outcome. As I see it, perhaps a better way is testing at departure - nay, upon approaching the airport building before departure! I would say a dangerous system likely to expose airport staff to possibly infected people - not to mention passengers and flight crew on the plane.

It still seems weird to me that on the one hand one can have a potential individual infected with Ebola walking through an arrival lounge and having temperature checked by someone in more or less normal dress, and on the other hand, someone is only considered as infectious after they've had their temperature checked. For example: the individual that reportedly informed aircraft passengers that he had Ebola was then dealt with by people in isolation gowns. But if he hadn't so informed everybody, he would presumably have walked off the aircraft as normal whether he actually had Ebola or not! Perhaps it's the case that Ebola is only infectious - to the extent of having to be biologically isolated - after an individual has had their temperature measured and found abnormal. One learns a little every day.

According to media reports they are checking passengers arriving at airports for possible Ebola by checking their temperature in the arrival lounge. I'm baffled by this on the grounds that apparently Ebola is so infectious that, even with an isolation gown, a nurse caught Ebola from a patient - in fact I understand there has been a second nurse so infected. And yet they are allowing the possibility of an infected person to walk through an arrival lounge prior to checking. Not to mention that the possible infected passenger has travelled on a plane with other passengers. It seems to me what they should be doing is sending testers, suitably gowned in isolation suits, to enter the plane upon landing and test all passengers before they disembark.

I think it's the case that the computer you mention very nearly bankrupted his company! Okay, the bankruptcy was apparently because of dodgy disks, but the power usage of CPUs those days were much lower - indeed, the thing I had at the time had no heat-sink (and it wasn't an Alan Sugar job). All I'll say is my laptop is a pain - hesitations and the like clearly caused by background functions. Whereas my PC is blindingly fast. As for tablets and the like, as far as I can see what you see on the screen isn't necessarily real time. Like a friend of mine says: I don't open with Google because it takes too long, but rather she uses (actions) the 'internet' icon. Trouble is what is then displayed on the screen is what was on it when last used! It even produces a progress bar (although a much faster one) zooming across the top as if it were doing a real search. Indeed, it appears one even has to be connected to the internet for it to produce this out-of-date information!! My friend is completely convinced that Google is a slow way to access the internet! For example: if she had the weather forecast displayed yesterday, and now switches on and opens up the display as above, one gets yesterday's forecast and yesterday's forecast for today as it was displayed yesterday, which, as we all know, is going to be wrong! And if one inserts a memory SD card, it takes ages read and thus display the contents for the first time. In other words, when one views directory contents one is really looking at is what it read whenever - like yesterday, the day before or last week. Any other time it's just a snapshot of what was read previously. In other words, there's clearly a bit of prestidigitation with these gadgets to give the illusion of speed.

Spot on. I only mentioned the two goes across the floor as an example. I think it depends on how they 'flip' the bits. Like whether it's done with TTL or FET (or is it called CMOS?) logic elements. Well, my CPU chip has a dirty great heat-sink and fan!

I can't understand this EU power business. For example, I use a vacuum clearer for as long I need to suck up the dirt. Presumably with a lower power job one runs the thing twice across the floor instead of once. As for computers, I never really delved into the inner workings of PCs, but I understand the machine code (instruction set) is, or was, somewhat inefficient. Like it couldn't address greater than 64,000 (16 bits), resulting in memory having to be accessed in 64,000 lumps or pages, with routines to index segment registers or something (segment register used to extend the address) - I think that's roughly what happens. As for the 64 bit system now available, I don't know. But whatever, perhaps it's the case that should the machine code have been more efficient, slower CPUs, and therefore using less power, could be used without loss of performance. But as said, I don't know about 64 bit stuff, so perhaps it's a different and more efficient machine code.

Are there other routers in the neighbourhood (like next door) on the same channel? What band are you using 2.4G or 5G (although faster, 5G has a shorter range)? Although and on the channel front, I believe some routers have the ability to locate and move to the least used channel. For example, I've noticed when out and about, some areas Wi Fi access just seems very slow, and to all intense and purposes, locks up. And when I look at the spectrum I find all the local routers are using the same channel! A recipe for congestion, me thinks. There's also the possibility of reflections occasioning multipath reception degrading the signal - you know, like the picture ghosting that could occur on the old analogue TVs.

Think I recall something similar some years ago. It consisted of a fairly large number of relatively small pistons arranged radially and operated by cams. The large number of small pistons was presumably to increase volumetric efficiency. But not having ever seen it again, perhaps the cam friction was a problem. Presumably the cam arrangement was to eliminate the need for umpteen crank journals and connecting rods. As for the above, it seems there'll be significant friction between the angled surface and the reciprocator.

Oh dear, here we go again. Bottle meaning the courage to step into new territory by going for a 'Yes'. I think it's more the case the Scottish nationalists have been wanting a vote for a very long time and the situation probably got to the point of it being difficult to deny them. And it was a judgement as to the timing and conditions. And, I suppose, like all judgements, get it wrong and one is a fool. Whereas get it right, and for some one is then a hero with amazing powers of skill and perception. Such is life. I can't say I saw a problem - if I understand what you mean by a problem. A good old political confrontation isn't a problem (if that's what you refer). And for resigning, my views are probably contrary to yours regarding who should resign out of the current lot.

How things can change. Before the election I recall that in the event of a 'Yes' vote there were calls for the UK PM to resign (I hope the term 'UK' fits John Cuthber's definition). But now it seems, following a 'No' vote, commentary in the media appears to hail it as a magnificent demonstration of democracy in action! I'm now going up a ladder for gutter cleaning!

They bottled out. I was looking forward to all the shenanigans and machinations of currency, businesses possibly relocating, their manufacturing facing ferocious world competition, border controls, banking runs and doubtless many others. But no, they bottled out.

I'm not going to do step-by-step reply to all your points, but just talking the above: Being currently all part of the UK is how I used the word 'country'. Something I'd have thought reasonable and obvious. And then your comment about the EU not being a country. Yes, of course we all know the EU is not a country; but I was replying to comments on passports, and as far as passports are concerned I understand it's viewed as one with free movement, and that was the context of my reply - something I'd had thought would be fairly obvious. But perhaps I need to submit comments to my lawyer before submitting! Now if you want to delve into grammatical inexactitudes, the odd poorly chosen noun or adjective, question the minutia of the wording to ignore the obvious direction of the discussion, then carry on. But I suggest it's nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a riddle. Yes it will be like neighbouring countries. Do you not need a passport to enter a country other than the EU? Not forgetting once Scotland separate they are yet to be (assuming they want to be) part of the EU. As far as I can see, undoing 300 years of history is exactly what they want. No it's not, is a different place within the UK. No different than saying Birmingham is a different city than Manchester. Blaming a particular political party is blaming democracy. There'll always be a significant percentage of the populous that think they've got (and therefore blame) the wrong party in power. At the current state of play it looks like whatever the outcome of the Scottish vote, something very close to 50% of Scots will either have the wrong outcome or stuck with a new constitution they don't want and can't get rid of. To quote the blindingly obvious, the result of an election is the voice of the organism called The People. To blame any particular political party is in effect to blame the people. We have a voice and we exercise our voice at election time. We cannot blame anyone but ourselves if we elect what we then think is the wrong party in power. Do I hear: "but they didn't do what they said they'd do at election time". That's still our fault because we didn't look deep enough at the baubles offered or the integrity of the candidate. Were they practical, possible or even affordable? If we are gullible enough to be taken in by a few impractical, impossible or unaffordable baubles, then we've no one but ourselves to blame. As for this Scottish business: has the main proponent of independence produced a realistic, practical not to mention possible plan for the currency? It seems to me as an outsider (and one who doesn't care one jot as to how they vote) he hasn't and always sidesteps the issue when questioned. Like the other day he was asked about a particular issue, and all I heard was a comment about a public announcement being made before the end of a meeting. Well, there may have been a slip of paper passed under a door, and very naughty if it was, but that's nothing to do with the issue. But presumably it's a good sidestep shuffle.

Think you're mixing definitions here. Clearly what one uses is open to agreement and can technically be anything. But what everyone agrees to use represents human effort and is called money. To suggest money is imaginary can only render human effort also imaginary, which is ludicrous. Cheapen money by (say) printing the stuff (QE I think is the description used in polite company), and you do nothing more than cheapen your, mine and everybody else's labour and effort - not to mention blood sweat and tears. And for Scotland to use someone else's money simply renders the value of their effort and labour entirely dependent on a foreign country's economy. Should the foreign county's currency collapse, Scotland's currency, and doubtless economy, would collapse also. As a general view, if they want to go independent, then just go. Identify your own assets, create your own money and go. But to continue to use the currency of the county you want independence from is, as far as I can see, an admission that independence wouldn't work. Indeed, such an arrangement is not independence.

Well, they'll be having some group telling them what to do. And at the moment, if they vote yes, they'll have a bunch who want to use a foreign currency like (as someone said previously) some underdeveloped country. I think they need to think about that one: they'll be a country that doesn't have, and apparently no intention of having, a currency of its own. And those leading the 'yes' campaign are apparently quite happy and content with such an outcome. And just to add to the certainty, the owning country say quite clearly they can't use said currency. If that's not a recipe for serious financial problems, I don't know what is. And I think we all know: It's the economy, stupid.

Earlier in this thread, I recall someone remarking that they never get the government they want. My response to that was that that is democracy. But with this Scotland business, and if the voting is reflected in the above poll, then a very large percentage of the Scottish population will be dissatisfied. And it won't just be the wrong government they'll be complaining about that can be ousted at the next election, it'll be the wrong constitution that can't be reversed! Recipe for a revolution? That's one way of looking at it, I would use the word exciting. Yes, I'm looking forward to it. Come on you Scots, vote 'yes'.

I haven't the foggiest to what it is you're talking about. As for this Scotland business, and if I've not made my view too clear, I'll try again. If someone came to me and said they were dissatisfied with conditions, I'd say: be kind enough to close the door as you leave. Likewise with Scotland. And as for this cancellation of PM's question time tomorrow, that's nothing more than cowering to threats. Did Drake stop his game of bowls?

Think it's a bit more than dreaming; just read that house purchase transactions have stalled. Stalled apparently because finance companies are not sure about the value of currency should Scotland go for a new one. And similarly if they use the Pound. Indeed, house values have reportedly dropped already. Think it was also reported they are worried about the 4 billion (think that was the amount) already loaned. Far from being a dream, it sounds like it's building up quite well. Yes, I make no excuses to being a voyeur. As for a general view, I don't see what all the political heat is all about. If Scotland wants to go it alone then I can't see why the rest of us should get too worked up in a lather. If they want to go, just go. But don't look to us for a bob or two if it all goes wrong.