Hazel M

All right. I just got it again. Here is what I saw. On this page, at the top is an envelope and a bar that says View New Messages click that and get a page with this URL: http://www.inboxviewergo.com/big.html?gclid=COetx-e8n78CFYRcMgodGA8Ajg At the top, its says "Inbox Viewer". Then this: "You're missing a tool to view private messages. Please follow these steps. Download the Setup file below Click "Run" and "Allow" Fast and Safe Installation will now begin. Does that help? I did access Science Forums.net that time. I do it that way when I have no message from SF but want to come here. So, yes, I clicked http://www.scienceforums.net and then searched for this particular section. My apologies if I am not always very helpful. I am not very computer-savvy. Computers are smarter than I.

I am sorry. I have no idea about screen shots. I can add this, though, which I forgot. The first note said I had messages. When I clicked that, I got the download bit. When I clicked on it, I got a small window that said "address blocked". That's when I backed out. If it will help, I can open that page again and tell you what is at the top. Will that help? That said, your opening statement tells me to leave it alone. That's good enough for me. It was there the first day I registered here and for a day or two afterward. Then it stopped and had not re-appeared until today.

I know the pros of a laptop over a desk top. Whatever purchase we want to make anywhere, everyone can quote all the reasons why we should. They leave us to discover the negatives after purchase - a bad time to find out. I am considering switching from a desk top to a laptop. Please tell me the negatives. I know the positives but what will I be sacrificing? If I know those, I can make an intelligent decision. Thanks.

Is this Inbox tool download item that I am getting legitimate? First I see "View New Messages". When I click that, it says I am missing a tool and should click to download. There is no explanation of where this comes from and why I should download it. Oh, there is a name at the top which I've fast forgotten but it isn't "Science Forums". Can someone please explain? I don't buy blind. I don't download blind. Cagey I am. Thanks.

Ah yes. Mine is LCD then. Thanks.

I have no idea what CRT or LCD are. So, skipped it. I am not a computer person. I just use it. I'm sorry, Sensel, but all your abbrevations are over my head. Your idea about the CPU overheating is worth taking a look at. We had to replace the fan a few months ago because it wasn't cooling properly. I'll find out about that. Thank you.

Let's see what I can explain. One, the monitor is older than the CPU. When I bought a new computer with Windows 7 a year ago, we kept the old monitor which I'll guess is about nine or ten years old now. I think, but not sure, that we also kept the same mouse. What happens? It suddenly freezes up and will not let me close out. Meanwhile the screen grays out. I have to shut down at the CPU and reboot. Also, when I am typing, it will suddenly stop and print nothing for about thirty seconds. All these things are at the "occasionally" stage right now. Not happening constantly. I just want to get some facts in information about it while I can. I suspected the hard drive. I have never yet bought a computer where the hard drive didn't die within the year and this one is almost one year old. I had a man out yesterday who checked and said the hard drive is fine. He suspects the monitor because it is older than the CPU. He says the freezing and graying is usually the monitor. I decided to ask here in case someone can give me more information - other symptoms. Dare I add that I don't like computers? As for testing it on a friend's computer, the only one I know with a computer has a Mac laptop. Mine is a desktop Windows. So, that won't work even if I had the nerve to ask.

iNOW, what generates electrical signals in the rest of the universe? I am thinking, from your statement, that it is not chemistry. What is it?

What are the symptoms of a monitor going bad? What particular things might be happening that give a clue? Also, if a monitor is going bad, can it affect the actions of the mouse? Thank you.

Thank you, Charon. Much of that is over my head but I do get the general idea. Using spectrometry - meaning light waves? I'm putting that badly but scientists can identify unseen things by the light waves they give off. Right? The cells can be seen? Meaning they can be studids more easily and then the nanoparticles created in a way to select the right cells? Of course that means first being able to select the right cells - the ones with the characteristics they need to work with. So far, so good? Back to seeing the cells. When I had a basic course in botany, we examined leaves under microscope and saw the chloroplasts whirling around the leaves. Were/are those cells? Another interesting field of study and so much advancement in it - in all fields, really - in the past 50 years or so. Thanks again. I think I get the general idea.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625201934.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29 "With the continuing need for very small devices in therapeutic applications, there is a growing demand for the development of nanoparticles that can transport and deliver drugs to target cells in the human body." I have been reading several articles about scientists zeroing in on specifically-selected cells to deliver medicines to particular sites, the aim being to treat only the area that needs treating (specific cancer cells) without spreading the medicine all through the body. I have a question. I think nanoparticles are invisible to the human eye. I am not sure but I think so are body cells. Even if not, they are terribly small. So, how are scientists able to locate just the cell/cells they want to target and instill medicine into those cells? One article (maybe being fanciful but maybe not) spoke of picking up a single cell with a tiny pair of tweezers. The same article was talking about doing something with the DNA. Can someone give the facts on this. How much can actually be seen and how do you work with what you cannot see? Do we have microscopes strong enough now to actually look at individual body cells? My apologies if I am being vague but this is all new to me and I'm not sure what it means. Hopefully, someone here is familiar with this new research. Thank you.

Oops! I was pronouncing it right. Guess I didn't check carefully. Haste made waste. Thanks. GPS. At least it isn't as much of a mystery to me as some things. So much new has sprung up in the last forty/fifty years. Hard to keep up. Steganography. What you call "meta information" would definitely be extra information that someone would need to program in, wouldn't it? That's what I was asking about earlier. Isn't some of this a matter of programming the GPS correctly. I recently read about a steep road that goes up a small mountain into a town in Wales. The road is barely wide enough for one-way traffic. The natives all know about it and take care but GPS does not give that information. There had been a few bad accidents caused by uninformed drivers relying on their GPS system. So, yes, "meta information" bears watching. Do the better systems have such information programmed in? It would take constant updating. "Road construction on route 77"? Wildly different routes? Maybe some are measuring distance in time instead of miles or kilometers? I know you know the many people who now measure distance in time. Ask them how far something is and they'll say "Oh, about five minutes" or "Just two hours". Now, there's theory of relativity that I understand. Anyway, on that point - get the math right? Maybe I am wrong but I'm still taking most of those errors back to a human who has to do some programming. GPS is a "computer", isn't it? It has to be programmed to do the job the right way. And the programming is more than just installing a map? Yes?

Stenography! "Word a Day". Wonder if that is what is messing up my emails. Hidden messages.

This is what I wanted to come back to. If I am reading rightly, the only "programming" into the system done by a human is putting in maps? Then, if GPS takes wrong streets, the map has a mistake on it. Am I right? It isn't a big deal,I am sure but the fact is that all good (stress good) maps have mistakes on them - deliberate errors. The purpose being to prevent stealing of another company's map. It has been a long while since I read about this but the example given was an alleged town along a county road in Kansas. There is no town there. It was planted by the original map maker. OK. GPS reads this map and coordinates its instructions based on that information plus the coordinates it reads via the satellite. Please tell me I have that right.

Actually, swansont, it's a smiley comment grown big. Someone had used GPS as an example of something long forgotten and I smilingly wrote "GPS doesn't always work either" or some such. The rest is history but I'm enjoying it. I'd never given any thought as to how GPS works. Certainly didn't know that it involved relativity. Gee! Does everything?

I've read that about the clocks. One on a higher floor of a very tall building will run faster. and that I understand because I understand gravity. Score one for my poor brain. I have an old book in my library called "How everything works". It was great back when. I need a new one. No problem about queue, Nicholas Kang. As was said, it's busy thread right now. I shall return to a good story I am sure.

Thank you. I am getting ready to go out. I'll have to come back to cogitate this. Meanwhile, what kind of error is this? In Kansas City - I think it was KC - I often rode a bus that used GPS. Well, all their busses did. But this particular bus's GPS was always off by about ten blocks. It lagged that much. When we were at our destination, it had us still back a long way from said destination. Meanwhile, I like your explanation. I was forgetting those satellites. I think that explains why, when a driver goes too fast and passes a street before the system tells him to turn there immediately gets a correction from his GPS. "You missed that; let's try this." Thank you.

I'm not sure to whom you are directing this question but I assure you I did not say - and do not believe - GPS is a mistake. I only said it doesn't always work right. As someone else said, perhaps the driver had cheap, unreliable equipment but it doesn't always work right. In other words, when we use our inventions, we need to stay in control. Right?

Well, you didn't mean to do it but you've filled my head with another whole new puzzle. Are you saying that the GPS system "senses/knows" where these streets are and directs the driver from that using relativity? Are you saying information is not programmed into them by human beings? I won't even ask how relativity relates to GPS. Not today. Will say that other drivers with different brands or updated receivers were not getting these errors. And there were more than just the one I described.

"Almost certainly". What is it they used to say about computers? They are only as smart as the person who put the information in. Whoever set up that particular system simply failed to learn that the street dead ends due a highway whizzing by. Nothing wrong with the system at all other than failure to check a map or take a walk around the neighborhood. Am I wrong?

Nothing ever works perfectly. I have had more than one cab driver argue with me when I told him he was going down a dead end street. GPS knows better than I do. The fun came when he had to back up and turn around. That's when I kept my mouth shut. <G> I know scientists like to challenge each other and worry an idea this way and that. And they enjoy very much explaining. My point, in too many words, was that sometimes we make assumptions that the questioner is being stubborn when all it amounts to is that he is still mulling over what he has been told. No ulterior motives at all. Just thinking.

Sometimes the problem is someone deciding the questioner is being difficult instead of just answering his questions and letting it rest. Sometimes the questioner really is sincere in questioning and not applying any ideologies or arguments at all. Just asking. Sometimes the way a questioner gets answered can cause more problems than solutions. Sometimes, with a good answer, the questioner will continue to study the subject; or, with a bad answer (an accusatory answer) will toss it all to the wind and say "forget it". Sometimes the questioner just needs time to mull over the good answer and absorb it. I have met too many people in my life who simply do not like to be questioned. I have never figured out why but they don't. Sort of a "what is is and take it or leave it". That, to my non-scientific mind - is not good science or good anything. Just my early morning thoughts. And thank you all for good answers. I'm still thinking. And yes, swanson, I agree with what you say. Just felt there is a bit more that needs added to the pot. Take care. Oh, P.S. GPS does not always work. Dare I ask why?

How much desolate land and public land is still in those areas? The parks, yes, but I think most of those are under some kind of control where they cannot be converted. Teddy Roosevelt saw to that. Well, just another thought and we could always change it. I did find one reference in a rather old book saying those two air masses tend to meet about 3,000 feet up. Of course, that would vary. A friend who keeps better informed that I about our weather says the funnels form about 2,000 to 3,000 feet up but the problem arises when they dip downward. I wonder - a non-scientific wonder - could the top of the wall break up a funnel? Of course, I am reminded that there should be no funnel to break up but that requires the storm to be much closer to the ground, doesn't it?. Storms are interesting things to watch and study. The man's idea has me thinking about the hurricanes. That would be harder to control. Yes?

They would lose the land that the wall is built on plus land on either side of the wall for much the same reason land is taken on either side of a highway. And they would lose it. We need not mention the power of those condemnation laws, need we?

See # 2 and 3. Those are the points that first hit me. Are we chancing such walls also blocking weather advances that we need? How many people who live in those environs would lose their land? And, an unscientific but necessary consideration - some of us just have a great antipathy against walls. Forgive my being philosophical for just a moment but do you know the song "Don't fence me in?". I am inserting that last simply because it really is something that will come up and get great reaction if any entity ever decides to go ahead with this. Cost? I notice that most of you are zeroing in on the cost. Nothing wrong with that. It's a very valid point. I can't even imagine it. It's probably the one thing that will stop these walls being built. But, if they are I trust those who do the job will consider all sides. I'd enjoy a discussion with you about using the scientific approach vs including the human element but that's another topic. Better skip it. I am off to see about those air masses. How many feet in 300 meters? Something short of 1,000? Thank you Phi. I missed that about the walls being permeable. I think you are saying the system could determine what kind of air mass was hitting the area and whether to let that cold January Canadian blast hit us or not. In other words, the proposal is based on knowing we have a tornadic system building up. Yes? As for choosing the area "where we can control" the winds, tornado alley isn't really an "alley. It covers a huge territory and tornadoes can hit anywhere within that space. So far as I know, there is no accurate prediction - well, on a case by case basis there is but the walls have to be built ahead of time. It's quite a proposal, though, isn't it? As for the snow fences, do they really work? I've never lived where I could observe them but I always envisioned the snow falling on both side of them and that on the road side would bury the road.