StringJunky

It was a long time ago.

That's because you have become accustomed to, and like, antibiotic and steroid treated meat; it is the standard by which you judge everything else. Not CJD; It's BSE. CJD is what humans get.

Yes, I should have mentioned that.

The source is more important than the medium, don't you think? I think it's just your age.

To use a computer analogy: psychology is the software and neuroscience is the hardware. As psychology affects, and is affected by, the neuroscience it's pretty important. My opinion is that learning psychology is a load of pot air without a strong grounding in cognitive neuroscience; the latter is much more empirically-based than the latter . I started a psychology course...

This is where you have got it wrong; The universe isn't in anywhere, so it can't have an origin; it is everything that exists.

I wasn't wrong, was I? I think it's bad manners, dishonest and just plain annoying for someone to apparently ask a question, as though they wish to learn something, then argue that the answers are wrong as the discussion proceeds.

Only the observable universe is spherical and a discrete space with a centre. The geometry or shape of the wider universe could be one of a few candidates, like a torus, for example; there is no centre. Visualise the surface of a sphere and you will see there is no centre and as it expands each adjacent point on that surface moves further apart

Right. We don't want those little blighters in the marmalade.

Google does not recognise osmostable. You mean sugar tolerant?

Yeast, fungi and moulds are considerably more sugar tolerant than bacteria, which is what they are using

At 50% sugar you are nearly into jam making territory which works as preservative by moving the water out of the bacterial cells osmotically* and dehydrating them. The maximum concentration needs to be lower than the concentration found within the cells to avoid dehydration. From this source , under the chapter called Sugar, a sugar-tolerant strain of acidophillic bacteria can multiply in a 15% sugar concentration. Probably, 10% would be a better starting point as you won't know if they are sugar-tolerant strains in your sample. *Osmosis - the water will move across a membrane from a low sugar ( or other solute e.g salt)/high water concentration to a high sugar/low water concentration, leading to dessication.

The latest part of this discussion has been whether ethics can be determined objectively and Zapatos and I think not.

Not in the area of physics he isn't. He's only presented musings - not practical research with evidence - on a subject that is not in his area of expertise.

What, you mean you're not telepathic?! It''s probably linked to a deficiency in empathy; some have more than others.

You are not getting the point. I'm talking about what people believe is ethical within a particular age or society, Wring your hands and cry "Hail, Mary!" all you like but it doesn't change anything - things are/were as they were/are. If you want to think you have loftier ethics then fine but it doesn't matter. There are some subjects, like this one, that many people lose their objectivity and their emotions come to the fore as though they feel the need to defend a position when it's not even under scrutiny.

It may be approved but you aren't receiving properly assayed medicine; it could be any purity and anything. A neuropathy is too serious to contemplate self-medicating.

Like anything, If it works for you, that's all that matters. I was probably not in a good mood when I wrote my last comment.

We can never know reality as it is but the closest we can get to it is with the scientific method and it's the people that use it to explore this subject are the ones you should be looking at.

No. Ethics is whatever the prevailing societal consensus is, whether it accords with our own view or not. Good ethics could mean that any baby born with green eyes will be killed because "they are inherently evil and the spawn of the devil and, therefore, must not contaminate the gene pool"; it would be morally justified in such a society because it is consistent with that belief system.

Right. Thanks. Rather than changing the analogy, people need to understand what they are, learn the limits of them and which area(s) the analogy is describing. People often take them too literally and changing it won't make any difference imo.

I don't disagree but I was responding to Buket's thoughts directly rather than Hoffman's. I think we agree his ideas are suspect.

Good thought but what's different chemically about skin that has a vein under it and an area that doesn't? I've had a lot of blood tests from different phlebotomists and the good ones - that don't hurt - tell me it's an art more than a science. It's all about feel.

Isn't the degree of curvature a function of the energy-density that causes it? I always thought that spacetime curvature was an abstract mathematical construct that generated a curved graphical distribution of the gravitational field; not literally curved space but values that created mathematical curves graphically.

Won't work. You can select "Forgot password". You'd need to close the associated email address as well.