StringJunky

The music is recorded on to the record at the normal constant rate. The RPM is constant and the modulations of the cut will remain at the original frequencies as the stylus goes inwards because n -no matter where it is in the spiral the modulations will still be modulate at the same rate as the recording. The modulations get tighter as it moves inwards but it also moves proportionally slower, WRT to the stylus, thus keeping the original frequency reproduction. The music,naturally, gets cut onto the record at 1 second/second; compensation is not needed.

Yes, I only appreciated the French films because they were subtitled; which I'm quite at home with. Will have to remember to get the translations for French songs. the films can be quite noir, which the french are pretty good at.

I thought you'd left us. Can't live with us, can't live without is; must be love.

That's a good strategy for getting things done but I think you will agree that knowing something is not necessarily understanding it. if you understand something you can actually manipulate it better to apply to more situations and even find novel applications for it..

Ooh yes, Jane Birkin, you bad boy. I think this one was popular in the UK. I'll say one thing for the French, they know how to make films about love, sex, intrigue and romance. Knocks everyone else out of the park. I love the existential/philosophical angles the characters often take.

I concede to your point JC on the language side. I was actually thinking much earlier than that also along the lines of genetic influences that comes with rape and pillage.

http://support.2k.com/hc/en-us/articles/201334313-Error-file-is-missing-or-corrupt-MSS32-dll-or-Binkw32-dll-

I don't know. Perhaps one of the more knowledgeable will say something about it.

It might help if you resist thinking of the universe as a discrete object inside a volume i.e. from the outside of the universe because you can't seem to visualise that conceptual space around the universe as merely an aid to objectifying it; you see it as something real. The absolute inescapable fact is that the observer is part of, and within, the universe. The notion of the universe having an overall shape, volume and size is moot and unknowable. When you see representations of the shape of it in science articles they are describing its spatial topology or behaviour/structure of spacetime over a very large sample of the universe.

"The CDC (Centre for Disease Control) writes: "Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well outside the body, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed–essentially zero. Incorrect interpretations of conclusions drawn from laboratory studies have in some instances caused unnecessary alarm. Results from laboratory studies should not be used to assess specific personal risk of infection because (1) the amount of virus studied is not found in human specimens or elsewhere in nature, and (2) no one has been identified as infected with HIV due to contact with an environmental surface. Additionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions; therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host." To summarize, HIV needs really specific conditions to survive outside the body. Typically air tight and climate controlled. As far as inanimate objects, needles are found to be one place the virus can survive a bit longer. This is due to the airtight space between the needle tip and the plunger also known as the "sweet spot"." http://helpline.aidsvancouver.org/what-we-do/helpline/online/how-much-seconds-or-minutes-exactly-hiv-virus-remains-alive-outside-human

The universe can be finite and unbounded I.e. no edge. Ask yourself: where is the furthest point on the surface of a sphere? This is an example of an unbounded but finite plane. Apply that 2D example to 3D. You seem to be making the common mistake that the cosmic expansion is radial with a leading edge. The universe expands equally everywhere where the gravitational force does not overwhelm the expansion; any objects or group of objects, about, more than 200m light years apart. Anything less than that, then gravity is too strong.

I would agree. That's as simple and fundamental an explanation one can have.

His simple analogy there is super and gets to the heart of the problem... he was quite peerless at explaining wasn't he?

Yes, in the bits and books I've read of his, he brings it up fairly regularly pointing to the difficulty in simplifying certain ideas without losing the essence of them, especially when introducing a new idea.

I don't think think anything anyone one says here will convince you. You need to go and get test tested. Or see your doctor.,

Exactly.

That's because English is a mashup of several languages, so a lot of words follow different spelling rules according to their origins and subsequent manipulation through the various eras. It can't be that bad because it is the de facto language of many areas of the professional, technical and social world... there must be something familiar and useful in it for so many to adopt it. Also it is naturally adaptable to changes in fashion and usage; it's rules are flexible. My hypothesis why English became so strong was because Britain was relatively rich resource-wise but relatively weak militarily; they were easy pickings as a disconnected, motley bunch of tribes. It's population acquired, absorbed and accumulated the genetic, industrial, linguistic and military strengths of the invading cultures. Eventually, the victims became the victors by virtue of being systematically invaded. I think it is a generally accepted fact, to use an analogy, that mongrels are stronger and more adaptable in different environments than pedigrees.

I agree, on the whole. This is flat out nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence, but we diverge here don't we?

Let's put it this way, and it concords with swansonT and John Cuthber: Let's say my relative formal experience in physics is a 1, yours is a 3, and swansonT is a 6. My knowledge of the physical world is going to be classical/Newtonian mechanics, at best; you will have some experience and awareness of relativistic and quantum effects; with swansonT, it's his day job to know these things... which it is.. OK? Who is best qualified to decide what the simplest explanation is without obscuring the real, current, picture of the state of knowledge about something in this field? I don't know what he knows, you don't know what he knows because our knowledge is much more basic than his, but yours is better than mine. Neither of us can judge whether he's being too complex or not, I can't judge you for the same reason. All we can say is "I don't understand". More often than not, the questioner needs to upgrade their own learning to be able to understand the answer. If you ask him a question, he will answer to the best of his ability. Whether you understand his answer, or not is not his fault or problem. I think it is beholden upon relative neophytes, in any given subject, to make sure they are at the right level of understanding before they ask such questions i.e. a manageable step up in knowledge, not a question that requires one to be already at the top of the ladder to understand. Quite a few times, over the years, I've asked a question, expecting a drink from a dripping tap only to find my head in a fire hydrant at full bore.

This translates to: you can't teach an old dog new tricks. If you keep your mind plastic and accept that knowledge is constantly evolving then you will too. It's when you think you know it, that is the time your brain/learning starts seizing up. I shall be forever plastic.

Given the traditional history of ethnic distinction by skin colour and its terrible consequences, I think society needs to move away from this style of reference. At the end of the day, all these terms origins/etymology were based on colonialist imposition on the inhabitants of the less developed countries. I think all these words, like 'Black', 'Negro', 'Caucasian' are fundamentally offensive and disrespectful as labels for particular groups of people. If a label must be used then 'Afro-Caribbean', 'African', 'German', 'European' is more useful, meaningful and respectful as a reference. Express a person's skin colour if it is pertinent as a means of personal identification but one shouldn't let it define them as an individual or the cultural group they belong to.