Royston

Nice work ParanoiA, it was Die Another Day...here's the quotes from that particular scene; Graves and Bond are fighting in a depressurizing plane Graves: Ya see Mr. Bond, you can't kill my dreams. But my dreams can kill you. Time to face destiny. [James pulls Graves' parachute cord] James Bond: Time to face gravity.

Arrghh, that's gonna drive me insane...I keep on thinking of either James Bond, Eraser (Arnie film) or is it the one with Wesley Snipes errrr. My housemate is a real movie buff, I'll ask him later on.

Deer hunter, is definitely a good one. Others that have stuck in my mind are the guy (can't remember his name) who gets attacked in bed in BraveHeart, his head caves in when struck with the ball and chain...the girl who gets struck by a bus in final destination, in fact all the death scenes are great in that film. The maid who gets hit by a truck in The Devils Rejects. I agree with Phi for All on Gladiator as well, very satisfying.

I was watching 'when stunts go bad' the other night, some of it was really quite harsh...including a guy falling to his death doing a tight rope walk between two buildings. The programme specifically said nobody died in any of the scenes they filmed, and then they go and show that. Anyway, it made me think of some of the great death scenes you get in movies (not implying that the tight rope guy scene was great) so are there any particular scenes that particularly make you grimace, is there are drawn out scene that makes you go oooooh, arrrrrrrrr, eeeeeeee. Or is there a satisfying scene when the bad guy gets what he deserves. There's quite a few I can think of, but I'm a bit busy at the moment.

I usually read two at a time, physics or philosophy on the bus ride to and from work, (though that changes when I'm doing a course) and fiction before I go to bed.

Strangely enough the mathematics section is for...mathematics. Do you actually have any grasp of relativity whatsoever ?

This is slightly different to your OP, I thought you were enquiring as to the here say your friends were spouting, and the vague, perhaps media driven views they had on pharmaceutical companies, and if these suspicions were correct. The stringency of drug testing differs from country to country, due to the amount of money a certain country has...so the drugs available over the counter in Bolivia for example are a far cry from what you order over the counter in the UK. This isn't corrupt per se, but certain countries are more lenient in what is prescribed and what is available with 'no questions asked' so to speak, just due to the amount of money it takes for drugs to be tested and go through insurance, and liability processes. Medicine and care are always big issues with any government, so they strive to deliver. The media...especially in the UK, will look for any slip ups, and this makes it even more expensive. Remember to prescribe a drug through a Practioner, has many more overheads than over the counter drugs. The drugs are available, but it's more the processes they go through to make them available, and I certainly can't pinpoint where the source of the problem is, as much as anyone.

This one from Phi for All...last paragraph. http://www.scienceforums.net/showpost.php?p=310215&postcount=57

Gah, I can't wait to start studying again...there's so much I need to refresh my memory on.

It's trapped within the earth itself, released through volcanism et.c

Yeah...I was thinking of early atmospheres when I posted, but the proto-planets were more massive and so obviously had stronger gravity trapping helium and hydrogen. I think solar winds had something to do with the change in atmosphere as well IIRC.

This is just a guess, but I would imagine the helium would escape past the ozone layer and would be ionized due to the level of radiation...for your theory to work I think there would have to be a sufficent amount of helium (a lot more than we have in our atmosphere) and less radiation, to create the equilibrium you're describing. I really am guessing though, maybe somebody more knowledgeable knows better.

What deranged nonsense is this !?! I wish I'd stuck with human-being in my last post, there was just a slight nagging thought that human and human being are incredibly similar terms, only because when we say 'human' on it's own, you associate the word with human-being. The only time this changes is when we are referring to a body part, DNA, et.c where we'd say 'human hair' or 'human DNA.' So to get all the semantics cleared up, a 'human' is not a sufficient description for this type of discussion...it has to be ultimately clear that it's a human-being that's being discussed, and 'being' as the word suggests is 'to be' (overlooking any existential connotations to the word) which clearly suggests self-awareness (at least at some level) when we say 'human being.' ParanoiA, you mentioned losing an arm...well you've already developed from the non-aware blastocyst, to a 'one-armed self aware human-being.' If you remove your brain, you are a 'clinically dead human.' All the stages before you reach a level of self awareness do get fuzzy, but a blastocyst is not one of them, and somebody who has had their brain removed certainly, cannot be considered a 'human being.' Would you say a skeleton is a human-being...a pile of ashes, where would it stop. Sorry that I'm repeating myself, and this all seems rather obvious, I just thought it was important to define the terms a little.

I had a lot of fun working 'on site' to, and clearly I was stereotyping, most the men I worked with weren't misogynistic pervs (I say most...not all.) Hand cream is definitely a no no, when using a Dewalt radial arm saw...'grunt.' Also, office life is pc gone haywire, you just can't be upfront with your co-workers as you would doing a trade, that's what I really miss, the lack of banter. In some respects I agree with your original post, I guess it's hard to articulate one's self, whilst ranting or venting.

I generally go for an almond and coconut combination, those perfumed creams wreak havoc with my delicate complexion. /me pouts lips Why don't you get a job on a building site, I did for four years, and you can revel in misogynistic, butt scratching pleasure.

He was doing the dishes the other night ? Gravity has arrived I must admit, I had no idea it had been anywhere, thanks for the heads up dogmaf.

I'll address your responses, mainly because you've horrendously misinterpreted the points I was trying to make... No you're bringing morality into it by lumping every stage in a humans existence from blastocyst to corpse and implying that every stage despite scientific evidence means that any stage can be considered 'human'. I have already stated that I don't believe this, so the stages i.e blastocyst or corpse that I do not consider human, means there is no moral argument to these stages, if of course they are human, then we have a moral debate. I agree, but if you think there are no defining differences between an acorn and an oak, or those differences are irrelevant due to a genetic code, then we're not going to get very far....i.e the same points are going to be brought up, again and again. Again, if you're going to say a blastocyst is a human, then a blastocyst has all the moral considerations you would ascribe to a fully developed human. How can you not if you're going to insist that a blastocyst is human or human being or whatever. I'm stating feeling capacity, because after certain developmental stages then it does become blurred (due to our knowledge) of how much feeling capacity a developing organism has...like I said if you can't make distinctions with stages of development, then any stage of development should have equal moral implications...i.e it's wrong to carry out research, experiments on blastocyts is equally wrong as carrying out research on fully grown humans. If we fail to make these distinctions, then we'll get into all sorts of problems regarding ethics et.c Remember, nobody here is saying a blastocyst is human, so there is no moral argument unless a blastocyst is considered human. That's all I'm going to say on the matter...very enjoyable debate.

Right, let's start again. I said nothing about uniqueness, and you're completely wrong that genetics shape attributes till the day we die, environmental influences are equally important, and even shape future genetic change in future generations. What defines a human becomes fuzzy when it goes past a certain developmental stage...it becomes fuzzy because our knowledge of feeling capacity becomes fuzzy. What we 'know' is paramount in the discussion, we 'know' that a blastocyst has no feeling capacity whatsoever, it has no neurological make up...at all, we 'know' that a chemoautotroph has no feeling capacity whatsoever, they may as well be the same organism if you're going to ascribe any moral implications to such an organism. Any arguments trying to smear what is human or not e.g a human in a vegetative state is moot, because we do not have the knowledge to define the feeling capacity of a human in a vegetative state, but we do have the knowledge that a blastocyst has no attributes to feel pain, emotion or any other attributes we use to describe a human. That is the difference, and I completely agree with Bascule.

It was a clumsy sentence, I was in a rush...and I completely agree that human qualities does become fuzzy, and to define 'human qualities' you need to define what is a human. I just don't agree that a 'solely' genetic classification defines an organism for all it's attributes, which is what Paranoia and yourself seem to be arguing...again I'm just about to go out, but I'll come back to this. EDIT... Right, now we can start tackling what defines a human, and it's certainly more than a genetic code carrying clump of cells, in it's early developmental stages, obviously that's not targeted at you Bascule.

Errr, IMM said that the intention of this thread was not to discuss 'personhood' and I agreed, and you also agree. (Italic) This is precisely what I said. So why are you disagreeing.

I'm not entirely sure why the organism argument was brought up, because it adds nothing to the original question, but ok. With your last point, yes we classify organisms so we know the difference between a monkey fetus and a human fetus...we also classify stages of development, but you've convenientally decided to ignore that. I guess, but if your going to use the classification argument, then you can't ignore the classification of stages of development. The 'being' of human being, is just a practical term just as classifying is practical. I agree, I think the thread was just trying to assert that we can't ascribe human qualities, until the organism displays human qualities...that is, it has developed into a human.

Always take your high heels off before walking over a cattle grid...I'm sure all of us have been there. Don't get stoned before going food shopping. Always check your shoe if you think you've stepped on a snail i.e an analogy for don't assume the worst until you know for sure. Worrying based on an assumption worsens the problem. Don't put all your dogs under one ladder, whilst opening an umbrella in front of a black cat with a stupid name.

Glad you enjoyed it aj47, exactly the reason why I started the thread. I'm sure there are plenty of food combinations out there that at first seem uncomplimentary, but work. I remember a few years back, a student friend had nothing to baste her chicken with, so she used marmite, I didn't try it, but she said it worked really well.

I have a very hand wavy idea of how the consistent histories approach to QM works, and if anybody is interested I found a very clear article that describes the logic behind the theory...now, I read in 'three roads' by Lee Smolin, that if the consistent histories theory is correct, that there is a chance that dinosaurs never roamed the earth, that the universe could go from classical to a non-classical system, and all sorts of odd goings on. I like to keep an open mind, but wtf. I'm nowhere near the level to understand this mathematically (part time, first year undergrad physics student) so I only have layman books and articles to keep me going until I get to a more advanced level, but can anyone explain this, what I get from the article doesn't assume what I read in 'three roads' so what exactly is going on here... http://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/CHS/quest.html

Another dish I'd like to try...I did have a rather bad experience with fish curry a few years back, and kinda put me off. I was at work do, having a rubbish time so I was trying to get through the free booze that was available as quickly as possible...anyway one of my old work colleagues sat down with a fish curry, she had a huge hairy wart under her lip, and the fish curry had an incredibly potent aroma. All I could concentrate on when she talked was little fleks of fish curry sticking to the hairs on her wart, she had a horrible throaty cough as well (heavy smoker) and what with the quick consumption of alcohol, and smell of pungent fish...I ran for dear life out of the hotel and chundered in the street.