Royston

Thanks all for your responses. This was actually the first thing I thought when she asked me, she's quite a fan of the more assertive type of dog (single mum, so could be a security thing...so a bit bias towards them) I just wanted clarification that some breeds are inherently more aggressive, and that it wasn't the media preying on the same newsworthy story, as the tabloids do regularly over here. A pitbull or rottweiler attack, grabs more attention in the press, than somebody being attacked by a collie. Again, this is what I thought, I just wasn't sure if (despite a certain breeds history) that certain care could alleviate any aggresive behaviour towards a family member for example. I'm not really up on dog training techniques et.c But my suspicions have been confirmed, so no signature.

All I'm asking (as I'm not a subscriber) is if anyone knows of any other articles for the following...

My elder sister is a dog lover, and she has asked me to sign a petition to change the media portrayal on so-called 'aggressive breeds of dog.' This would include Pit-bull terriers, Rottweilers, Dobermans et.c Her argument is, that the owner is responsible for the temperament of the dog, and it's unfair to ban certain breeds, and have more media attention on certain breeds, if it's solely the owner that's responsible for the dogs’ temperament. She says she has some stats that put Alsations, and Jack Russells and surprisingly Collies at the top of the list, but I havn't seen the source of these stats, so I'm clueless as to their credibility. Also you have to take stats with a pinch of salt, due to the popularity of certain breeds et.c Now, I'm not going to sign a petition just because 'it's my sister', so are certain breeds inherently aggressive, is there hard evidence that proper training and care whatever breed of dog it is, will ensure they won't attack, or is it impossible to say. I'm not an expert at all in this area, so can anyone enlighten me, and I'll pass the info onto my sister...although she is very stubborn. (sorry sis)

Well this thread was plucked from obscurity, it stemmed back from some of the discussion on the old P & R forum, so isn't really applicable anymore...heh, run for your life, it's an angry snail.

Eh ? Would you mind expanding on that statement please. It's very early stages, but AFAICS this is good progress and will be used for future cosmological modeling. Why this in particular, Heretic ?

Other than the placebo effect, which AFAIK is still under investigation, there is no empirical evidence that stones have 'healing' properties. The problem with the placebo effect is that I could convince somebody my wooly hat has healing properties...so there is no evidence that a stone has any special properties over any other given object e.g my wooly hat. Your friends can say pretty much what they like, as long as the word 'proof' and especially 'scientifically proven' are not used in their website. So, 'the crystals are believed to have the power to heal' is fine. http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Energy

In a word 'awesome'...please have a look at the BBC article (link below.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6235751.stm

I vaguely remember this episode, but were they actually clear on what they were basing the statistics against i.e it's far more likely we are in a simulation than this all happening by chance ? The only problem I see here is you're comparing a 'current' market trend, i.e the popularity of computer games with the likelihood of a superior ancestral simulation. I'm not sure the two are comparable, games have a purpose to entertain, how would you ascertain what the purpose of this so-called simulation is, and why is the reality of the creators of the simulation the same as ours ? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'other realities we might actually be in' but if there are a multitude of simulations, how would we know anything about these other 'realities' to make them statistically viable i.e we'd need some numbers to go on. I think there's too many unexplained attributes to what's outside this so-called simulation, to start comparing it's validity with attributes inside this so-called simulation. I know you were being tongue in cheek, but I think to tackle such a question with statistics is a bit of a no-go area, both to prove and disprove. If this is a game however, then there's a severe lack of zombies, and as Ndi said, how incredibly boring...'your next quest, is to seek the post office, and settle the gas and electric bill.' I couldn't see this game gaining much popularity.

The expansion of space is an observed phenomenon, there's no center to the universe, galaxies are moving away from each other. The idea would only indicate that our position is central, if our position was static, which it is not. I'd read up on some basic principles of cosmology and relativity. Wiki is a good starting point.

Quit smoking...sometime this year, cut down the alcohol, study my butt off, buy a telescope. I really mean to stick to this, otherwise I'll carry on smoking, cut down the study, drink my butt off and so won't be able to afford a telescope. Oh, and quit falling through balcony doors and cracking my head on metal railings which I managed to do 5 mins before 12:00 new years eve...that really has to stop.

Highly unlikely I'll be posting on here for a couple of weeks, so just to say Happy Holidays to everyone, and a fantastic New Year. Cheers everyone, Snail

It's probably not a good idea to cite threads raised in speculations for questions raised in the 'physics' forum.

/me douces myself in salt, and waits outside Thom Yorkes doorstep (ready to be stepped on)

I've seen a few of the bands you mentioned, Foo Fighters were awesome when I saw them play (way back in 1996) 10 years ago Strangely enough, and you'll probably be baffled by this, but I wanted to see Radiohead play live just after they released Pablo Honey, anyway many years later and they were headlining at Glastonbury, two tunes in, me and my ex got up, said 'well this is dull' and went to see Lamb. I can't fathom why, they sounded incredible, the stage was incredible et.c but it just didn't gel at the time...Lamb were good though (I believe it was their last live appearance.) Paranoia, I'm jealous you've seen Metallica, I've actually just been listening to 'One' If anyones interested I'm playing down my local this Saturday , it's electronic music though.

This might seem like an odd question, but has the cause of ambition in an individual been pinpointed, or is it due to a number of factors, so in short, what makes somebody more ambitious over another. I'm very hungover today, so please excuse me if this is a dumb question.

Yeah, the odd day or two over a number of months, or some courses provide a sister course where you do a week in a lab which you have to pay extra for (you get 10 points on completion). Unfortunately I had holidays booked et.c so I couldn't get the time off work to attend. So it's not really sufficent, obviously there's lots of lab work in a brick university. I think if you complete a BSc in Physics with the OU, you can apply to be a chartered physicist and I think it would be a lot easier to get work experience that way...but not completely sure about that. All I know is lab experience is essential if I plan to do a master’s full time.

Thanks all ! Sorry about the last comment, had just polished off a bottle of Chilean red, I just wanted to stress what an influence SFN has been, and (fingers crossed) if I gain a BSc, SFN would be directly responsible for my success. Just to answer a couple of questions, OU (Open University) is a means to study towards a degree part time, so my Physics degree will take roughly 5- 6 years, you can also study masters through the OU, but I intend to get some lab experience, and hopefully study my masters full time. Studying with the OU is great, you get loads of support, and they're a real friendly bunch, it starts with the basics but gets hard very quickly...as long as you plan your study time (which due to other pressures doesn't always work out) you don't need to cram loads in, which obviously means referring back quite a bit, but so far it's been plain sailing, and I'm really looking forward to the maths course next year.

Well there's a simple answer, you appear to be a determinist and you associate meaning and moral codes due to that i.e because the blastocyst was always going to be you, then it holds the same moral weight, because it turned out to be you. What you need to remember, is that any given blastocyst doesn't carry the same moral values, because we can only evaluate at the time of the blastocysts existence what those moral values should be. Because we have 'evidence' (and I can't stress that enough} of the level of self awareness, we can't define a blastocyst as a being...I hope that makes sense, I'm celebrating this evening...

Foolish SFN users, I demand a virtual pat on the back ! I'm flitting between SFN and lots of friends in my house

I'd like to know the answer to this as well, I've read a bit of Bohm...but more the philosophical side but it did touch on the Bohm interpretation of the atom...AFAIK there's a problem with hidden variables. BTW gib65, did anyone tell you, you bare an uncanny resemblance to Jeff Goldblum

No worries, glad I could help...if you get into any problems either send me a pm or start a thread, again apologies to blackhole123 for going off topic.

Paranoia, here's what my mate said...there's loads of ways you can do it, but this should help.

This probably doesn't mean anything to anyone...but I've just had my results back from the OU for my first course, and it's a pass !!! So I now have a certificate in natural sciences (9 months of work not down the drain)...woohoo. My exam for my current course is in a few weeks, and my 9 month maths course starts in January, so it's full steam ahead. OMFG I'm happy. And if it wasn't for you guys on here, I never would of even considered studying towards a physics degree seriously, I'd still be spouting lots of pseudo nonsense, so a huge thankyou to anyone who's helped me out on here !!! Sorry for being a bit cheesey, but I'm rather ecstatic at the moment.

If I can, I'll try and get hold of my mate tonight and ask him how you do it...but I'll definitely have an answer soon. I'm not entirely sure he knows cakewalk to well either, but I know for sure you can root pc fx into the mixer for some packages, either way I'll let you know as soon as I can.

Sweet ! (sorry for going off topic) I've got two external rack fx Lexicon and a Behringer, plus loads of VST plug in FX, mainly Ohm Boyz cause they're awesome. Sadly I just havn't gotten away from using cubase vs 5.1 I know it inside and out, but it just doesn't compare to the more recent sequencers. I'm getting Ableton soon, so I can mess around with seperate tracks I've recorded through cubase to compensate for the lack of twiddling you can do with cubase. A friend of mine uses Reaktor and he's had some of the instruments he's designed made available to the public, I'll ask him about that tonight if he's on msn. I'm not too familiar with cakewalk, can you use VST plug ins, also do you root your fx from your pc into your mixer (which I can't remember how to do that, but I can find out)...or do you record and add fx on afterwards or just use your digitech pedal for your guitar ? Which Mackie do you have, I've got VLZ1604...it's lush. Sorry for bombarding you with questions.