Dak

viagra?

phospho-lipids (the thingies that cell membranes are made out of) will spontaniously form vesicles in water due to hydro-phillic/-phobic interactions. so, phospho-lipids + water + self-replicating molecule = self-replicating molecule in a vesicle just by chance. actually, phosopho-lipid vesicles have some of the properties of life themselves: they can 'grow' (by absorbing new phospholipids that they bump into) and 'replicate' (too large and they become unstable, and can split in two)... if they've got a molecule inside them that self-replicates, then in theory you could have some inheritance going on as the 'daughter' vesicles will also contain said molecule... if the molecule somehow strengthens the vesicle or aids the formation of vesicles or something then you'd have the very begginnings of an evolution-capable system.

I have no idea. I was just going off of the fact that my spectacles have an anti-glare sheen on them, and they reflect green, whereas my older non-anti-glare one's reflected true-colour.

I doubt it, but it might have some anti-glare sheen on it. that tends to reflect green images.

first result at least one physiological change that takes 21 days to fix. lol, nachrs

they're pretty gay compared to what most people will have experienced. DrP, are you sure on that 4-5 day thing? iirc, it takes that long to flush the niquotine from your system, but a lot longer for the physical changes in your brain to stop.

From python's point of view, that's not a 6*6 grid, that's a 36*1 grid. a 3*3 would look like this (newlines optional): room = [ ['#','#','#,'], ['#','#','#,'], ['#','#','#,'], ] or simply ['###','###','*##'], with the dirty room here being refferenced as room[2][0] (the 0th charector in the 2nd list item) every position on a 2d grid (e.g., a list of lists) can be refferenced by room[a], so i assume it'd just be a case of incrimenting/decreasing a or b to move up/down/left/right.

Indeed. If we banned everything that harmed non-concenting adults, even just a tiny wee little bit, then we'd have to ban everything and nothing would be allowed. Its just annoying that we seem to pick-and-mix exactly what harm we have to tolerate (car fumes, industrial pollution, cars, arsenic in drinking water, violent drunks, etc) and which it's ok to be grumpy intolerant bigots about (smoking, etc).

virtually everything can be toxic if the concentration is high enough (including water); similarly, many 'toxic' compounds are perfectly safe at low exposure rates, so it doesn't neccesarily follow that all exposure to smoke carries at least some increase in risk. e.g., from my memory, some of the carcinogens in smoke are carcinogenic because they block up gap junctions, thus preventing the sharing of telomerase inhibitase, which can be (iirc) a secondary carcinogen (in as much as it allows a cancerous cell to 'promote' into a tumour); however, this is the kind of thing that you'd presumably need to happen alot to have any effect: the odd gap-junction here and there being blocked would presumably have an undetectable effect on the risk of lung cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14735478 If i'm reading that right, theres a 1 to 51% increase in lung-cancer risk if your long-term spouse smokes (95% CI). So, i'm not sure that it can be determined that there's any actual noticable risk from regularly going to a well-ventilated pub, or sitting next to a smoker at a bus stop (both of which would presumably expose you to less smoke that a spousal smoker)? (i can't read the paper itself, so i'm not sure what they meant by 'social exposure' btw).

otoh, STDs were changed to STIs, and I allways got the impression that it was done for the sake of the 'infected', so that they didn't have to live with the stigma of being 'diseased'. imo, if you dont want to be called diseased, you shouldn't get herpies, but there you go...

actually, I tried to find a source for this and I may have been mistaken (sorry). otoh, I couldn't find any clear-cut cited claims that casual exposure to second-hand smoke causes an increase in risk of lung-cancer. some that an exposure increased the risk slightly, a few older one's claiming it didn't (tho I'd guess the consensus would be that regular exposure does contribute to lung-cancer rusk), but none commenting either way on casual exposure (as you might expect in a well-ventilated pub).

In fairness, I think he was trying to reducto ad absurdum you. He was still wrong, m'just saying. Traveller, please follow Mr Skeptic's advice, or just wait until one of our physics experts comes along and tells you wether you're right or wrong. LHC, the sun is about 110 times the size of the earth. it wouldn't fit in the ocean.

So, in other words, exactly like your two posts above YT's comment, which were blatant flames, and were only 'not public' because I deleted them. some random quotes from that thread in addition to those iNow provided: ---- FYI - Perhaps people will understand me better if I explain myself on this point a bit. I'm a Christian and a physicist. I'm one of those Christians who does not accept the Because God did it. explanation of the phenomena in nature. As a physicist I believe that would be like giving up on the search for an understanding of the universe when they do that. I always try to look for a better understanding of reality. Putting these two philosophies together I think it can be described in the same way Einstein phrased it - I want to understand the universe because I want to know what God is thinking. (or something like that). Where did you learn this from? It doesn't sound like Islam at all! There are some really brilliant physicists in this world who are extremely smart, rational and critical thinkers who also believe in God. I asked a Muslim friend about this and he tells me this is pure nonsense. I myself have never come across such a thing in my studies of Islam. Where in the world did you hear this anyway? Getting back to morals, consider the ten commandments. ---- and so on. I'm sorry Pete, but even if you didn't realise it at the time, you were, in actual fact, at least tangently discussing religion. Granted you were constantly claiming that you weren't, but you also have constantly claimed you're leaving, yet you're still here. fwiw, yes you didn't bring religion into the conversation; but as DH said on the first page: Now: it seems as if you got annoyed at iNow for what he said about god. he was warned, via PM (yet again, and for the last time*) not to be so abrasive. you were calmed down via PM by phi. I hinted in the thread that the religion aspect of the conversation was over, just to make sure there'd be no 'who gets the last word'age going on. You attacked what I said in a way I found annoying, and which pretty much carried on the problems in the thread in what I considered to be an 'im having the last word' kinda way. I put my foot down and pointed out that you were, not to put too fine a point on it, talking gibberish, and that any further off-topic posts would be deleted. Maybe I was too provocative, maybe not. who cares, really. If I was, then I appologise, but if you really can't take your posts being pointed out to be wrong and/or being moderated, I'd suggest this is the wrong site for you. You responded by insulting me twice in the thread, reporting my post with an offensive message about me (dispite the fact that you must have known mods can read the reported posts), you've generally been annoying certain mods with your attitude, etc. I'll point out that no-one's banned you, and are in actual fact taking efforts to try to encourage you to calm down. In future, just ignore iNow. in future, if you don't want your post ripped apart then make sure it in some way makes sense. in future, if you don't want to be annoyed don't piss off lazy moderators whilst you are forcing them to moderate you. In future, if someone offends you -- intentionally or otherwize -- take a few deep breaths and try not to cross the line from 'forgivebly a bit snarky' over into 'prissy'. Lets try this again: well, if you're going to ignore each other from now on, i guess that's the end of it. hint, hint. I rarely post in physics and you rarely post out of it, so ignoring each other shouldn't be too hard. Honestly, I'd prefer if you stay, but i'd suggest you steer clear of religion from now on (tho, of course, if you have any further issues with my moderation/post-reporting feel free to carry on) ---- *Oh look, i'm publically moderating iNow**, as Phi did earlyer in the thread. aren't we evil. If it helps, in the last 24 hours i've had to moderate 3 people (1 of whom was really quite annoying) and i'm lazy, so am a tad grumpy right now. **Possibly 'cos i'm pissed off that <1 day after his last warning i'm pretty sure he managed to piss off YT and Pete again with his tackless bitching at god again, hint. hint.

Definately. afaict capitalistic theory states that capitalism will work given an active and well-informed society. Certain things that are true of capitalisms (and, quite often, the worst aspects) seem to be solvable simply if people knew more. e.g., several people seem to act as if they're unaware that they could get free re-training and then a better, higher payed job; or even seem to be unaware of the concept of shopping around for an identicle job that happens to pay more. people also seem to not savvy that if someone pays you a set wage for doing a set amount of work -- e.g., as is common in offices -- you're not obliged to work more than your contract stipulates anymore than they're obliged to pay you more than your contract stipulates. Too many people work hard in offices beyond what they have to that those who are disinclined to do this can just be replaced by the kind of workers that would have made communism work, whilst wages are kept low.

I dunno. why didn't you just accept that you'd been (apparently too) subtly told to stop discussing religion by a moderator? You know, instead of responding with a numbered list of non-existant issues with what I said, before continuing to discuss religion by declairing that you would only respond to PMs on the issue henceforth? Perhaps I was trying to accomplish you realising that if you're going to throw numbered lists of errors at people (which, by the way, can come across as somewhat patronising), you'd better make sure they're correct. Perhaps I was trying to set a precedent whereby on the rare occasions when I moderate in-thread I'm actually listened to (which, by-the-way, is not the same as a 'power trip'). As for 'why not by PM', as well as what Sayo said, I also kinda like doing it out in the open wherever possible so that I can be peer-reviewed. If I was too provocative, any of the other members/moderators are free to say so. I'm open to being criticized further, but I'd suggest you either calm down and think about why you've been 'bitched at' by so many people (and why it was embarrasing to be criticized publically, rather than privatley) then just forget this and stick around, or -- if you're going to leave -- just leave.

see, now this is what i don't get... did you just not go to non-smoking pubs before? or, are your mates assholes who won't compromise with you by going to a well-ventilated smoking pub? as someone who was allways willing to walk further to go to a better-ventilated pub (you know, on the condition that my mates would be prepared to walk further for me to avoid a non-smoking pub) i find it quite annoying. along with the fact that the WHO say that casual exposure to smoke as youd find in a well ventilated pub is not linked with cancer, whereas cars cause numerous health problems. and many other hypocracies and inconsistancies... rant=on for all that's wrong with out countries, this one really annoys me the most, cause it kinda has everything: bigotry, lack of agreement with reality, nannyism, sneakyness, etc etc etc

fossil fules form a very long carbon cycle. over millions of years, carbon-based life-forms die in such a way that they don't just rot and release their C back into the atmosphere, but rather sink to the bottom of the ocean, are covered by advancing ice-sheets, etc. then, millions of years later, the oil/coal/gas/whatever reaches a subduction zone as the tectonic plate shifts along, pushing the C into the magma. eventually, it is released back into the atmosphere by volcainoes. I suppose if tectonic movement was faster then you could have it so that the decomposing-C-based life doesn't have time to turn into oil/coal/gas before it reaches a subduction zone. maybe. [acr=I am not a geologist]IANAG[/acr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7635929.stm ach! so, there's a huge prohibitive tax on tobacco, we've got warnings 'reminding' us of some of the more extreme repercussions of smoking, soon we'll have pictures that would disturb most people indipendantly of wether they had anything to do with smoking (most people wouldn't like looking at a healthy human lung either), there's talk about only allowing the selling of 20-packs and not allowing them to be on display in shops, the age-limit recently went up to 18, it's illegal to smoke in public places (including pubs) and, just to ultra-annoy people, it's illegal to smoke in bus stops, or within 10 feet of an entrance to a public place, which admittedly isn't enforced. since when did it become ok to officially say that smoking's ok (i.e., tobacco is legal) but that it's also ok to annoy the **** out of people till they quit. 'its ok to do this, but, wait, no its not we're going to try to stop you in any way we can, short of illegalising it for some reason'. if anyone has any idea as to why smoking is being banned in this way (i.e., without actually banning it), i'd be interested to hear.

and yet you did i didn't apart from the conversation you just had, the fact you said that in reply to my post, and the fact that you then immediately proceeded to respond to bigjob's post apart from the fact that you have, in actual fact, just had a conversation on a science site about religion. in case you couldn't figure it out, that was the 'it' to which i was refering when i said 'i guess that's the end of it'. i.e., this thread will get back on-topic and away from religion. goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood if you wish to reply to this, PM me. any more off-topic posts will be deleted.

well, if you're going to ignore each other from now on, i guess that's the end of it. hint, hint.

I never know what to google, so a few suggested keywords for good starting subjects: evolution central dogma dominant recessive co-dominant alleles mendilian genetics DNA or just 'overview of genetics' or something. fyi, the two main types of genetics are population genetics (dealing, unsuprisingly, with the allele frequencies within a population -- looks at the processes of evolution, etc) and molecular genetics (deals with the molecular underpinnings, e.g. dna replication, allele promotion, etc).

This dispite the evidence (given to you above by iNow) that there are, in actual fact, genetic underpinnings to alcoholism? lol @ irony. it certainly has some genetic factors. y'know, as proven by science. which, last I checked, was probably our best method for obtaining facts about reality. moron.

my appologies. I meant if the statement was false, then z% of people would be in favour of x on day 1, where z is not 45. i've mostly seen statements of certainty (as opposed to confidence intervals) on public oppinion polls, hence why i worded my example like that. (think estimates of parent-population mean based on sample mean: you usually end up being able to say 'there is x % chance that the parent population mean is between y and z' iirc)

basic question: 1/ on day one, 45% of people are in favour of x 2/ on day two, 50% of people are in favour of x assume a margin of error of [math]{\pm}[/math]0% and a certainty of 95% (i.e., 5% chance of each statement being false). so, what's the certainty of the conclusion 'therefore, support for x has grown between days 1 and 2'? I suppose that if there's a 5% chance of each precept being wrong, and two precepts (i.e., 2 chances for a precept to be wrong), then there'd be a 10% chance of... what? the conclusion being not neccesarily true? The certainty of the conclusion seems as if it'd be 10%, but that feels a tad wrong. e.g., precept 2 could be wrong, but in actual fact on day 2 support could have been 60%, thus the conclusion would still be correct. so, yeah, basically how do the certainty intervals combine in this case to give a certainty for the conclusion? (for bonus points: how would that work with confidence intervals instead of certainty?)

^ yes, especially if you keep relapsing irreguardless of wether it's a 'psychiatric illness' or not, you'll get some useful help in controlling your anorexia by seeing a doctor/psychiatrist/counsellor. So, yeah, i'd advise you to go see a GP.