StringJunky

For that reason alone we must not have it. The Like system is too lovey-dovey and positive imo and not consistent with the sometimes adversarial nature of SFN's discussions. It's important to be able to show that you don't like something. Negative notifications help people correct themselves as much as positive notifications encourage particular behaviours and approaches.

I thought that too.

Keep to the old system I suggest. With better public transparency of who applies negative and positive rep it's not so easily abused...I'm assuming we can see who applies what like in the 'like' mode? At least we can show disapproval of a post but in the Like system you can't.

Is there only a 'like' option? Can we not dislike a post?

Re-reading this it gave me a thought for people that have a severely reduced focal range because there's problems with their eye muscles. A flexiible lens with adjusters around its perimeter that pull or release equally and these are connected, via a microprocessor, to an infra-red lght/sensor which is embedded in the frame. The information is sent to the microprocessor that calculates the distance and activates the adjusters to create the correct focal length. I've just done a quick Google for flexible polymer lenses and apparently scientists have developed the most important part of my idea which is the lens...this is for lens implants though: "Researchers at the Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, working with spin-off lab PolymerPlus, created the lens by stacking up layers of laminated plastic. Weighing a tenth of a traditional lens, the polymer version is up to three times more powerful and, crucially, had the capability to be flexible enough to incrementally change its refraction of light." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/14/polymer_nanolayer_lenses/ More practically with respect to the OP, and more expensively, I suppose one could get some varifocal glasses that are ground within a limited range just for reading so you just peer through the optimal part at any given time; this would probably reduce eyestrain.

Some people have concluded otherwise, although with a caveat.: "That the Earth's water originated purely from comets is implausible, as a result of measurements of the isotope ratios of hydrogen in the three comets Halley, Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp by researchers like David Jewitt, as according to this research the ratio of deuterium to protium (D/H ratio) of the comets is approximately double that of oceanic water. What is however unclear is whether these comets are representative of those from the Kuiper Belt. According to A. Morbidelli [9] the largest part of today's water comes from protoplanets formed in the outer asteroid belt that plunged towards the Earth, as indicated by the D/H proportions in carbon-rich chondrites. The water in carbon-rich chondrites point to a similar D/H ratio as oceanic water. Nevertheless, mechanisms have been proposed[10] to suggest that the D/H-ratio of oceanic water may have increased significantly throughout Earth's history. Such a proposal is consistent with the possibility that a significant amount of the water on Earth was already present during the planet's early evolution." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

Three sounds reasonable. If somebody consistently gets hit with three negs a day or at least frequently for innocuous or well-meaning posts we know they are the subject of a personal vendetta...it's usually pretty clear when someone gets negged why they've got it.

Of course. Silly me. It was just a quick question that came in my head.

Yes that's right, to however many people you think deserve it but only once each in any day. Like say, you pissed me off, Swansont and Mooey ( ) I could give you one each only once a day. It did occur to me that the forum software may not be sophisticated enough in that department...no harm in asking though is there? I'm more or less in line with you; bad attitude and obstinance in the face of sound evidence. I don't neg anybody for wrong answers sincerely given. I find myself doing it for answers that are not mainstream in the hard science sections as well now....it muddies the water for those looking to discover the scientific consensus. As a novice I can get confused myself, especially with those who are pretty good at science but are sticking their own ideas or interpretations in...the discussion fairly recently about wave-particle duality comes to mind with respect to its current validity.

I can understand why the application of negative rep is limited but is it possible to set it so that it can be applied to more than one person a day as I wanted to dish one out to to two people today but couldn't? Is it possible to limit it to issuing to one recipient each at a time but only once in a day from you.

How about contacting firms that make element collections to sell?

Going on the guiding principle that I was taught (O level here) that elements try to attain a noble gas electronic configuration in any reaction why does hydrogen give it's electron up rather than try to gain one to have two like helium? What property tips it that way?

Best thing to do is actually go and get your eyes tested and then you know what corrections are required if you buy off-the shelf ones in future. Cheap reading glasses, I've found, aren't consistent in their optical configuration and can cause eyestrain. Foster Grants, which are £10 to £15, are much more consistent. The main thing is, know your optical requirements first by buying your first pair properly measured by an optician. If your eyes need +2 and you are using +3.5 (stronger) it can cause quite bad eyestrain, especially cheap ones. I think the reason you don't get eyestrain from your lens is because you are only using it over a very short range of distance and, more importantly, manually adapting the focus with your hand so your eyes don't have to, hence the lack of discomfort. Also, with long-sighted glasses on you will look around from reading and your eyes will try to bring things into focus that are maybe a bit too far for you to do so easily...with a lens you just look away.

I shall watch out for them. I go night fishing and a friend and I were plagued by mosquitos one night and we found that smouldering pine cones waved around oneself kept them off...at least while they were burning anyway!

Let us know the outcome of your trials won't you?

I think the light-capturing ability is a property of the particle size...the bigger the particle in the powder the 'faster' it is. It's similar to camera-film emulsions...the faster the film (more light-sensitive) the grainier the final picture due to the bigger grains. I don't know where you are but I found glow-in-the-dark powder which uses zinc sulphide from the US: http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/product/1586#review

From a decorating site: Phosphorescent or luminous paints may themselves be sub-divided into two classes-those which give a relatively bright afterglow of short duration and those which give a longer but less bright afterglow. For the first class, zinc sulphide or zinc and cadtnium* sulphide are the pigments most employed; for the second, calcium sulphide, strontium sulphide, or combinations of the two, are commonly used. The medium may be oil or cellulose varnish. All pigments for phosphorescent paints are comparatively coarse in particle size, since the property of phosphorescence depends mainly on a coarse, crystalline structure; consequently they cannot be ground in a tightly-set roller mill. Either a very loosely-set mill must be used or the pigments must be stirred or mixed in the medium. The range of colours in which they are available is limited to a greenish-yellow phosphorescence for the first class, and a bluish green for the second; in daylight, the colour is a dull white. Owing to their coarseness, phosphorescent paints have poor gloss, do not flow well, and tend to settle hard and quickly. Best results are obtained if they are applied over a white-base coat, such as a good zinc white; on no account must the undercoat contain any white lead, - either as a pigment or in the form of a drier. For outside exposure, the luminous paint must be protected by a coat of clear varnish or lacquer, or it will soon disintegrate. The protective coating will involve some loss of luminescence. * I think this should read cadmium http://www.bozzle.com/paintluminous.html

The thin silvery outer skin of the Silver Birch tree is very flammable if you have them around...just peel some slivers off.

You might get comments from people who have posted only a few times and this may give a clue to the feelings of the one-time-posters. You and I are probably blind to the impression the site gives to newcomers having got used to its ways and members. A site will always get some drive-by thread-starters though.

Something like this?: Topic title: New members: How do you rate SFN and it's membership? Topic description: Please give us your initial impressions.

I can't find a single instance of extreme detail and photorealistic drawing combined (didn't look too hard) but I can find a high level of detail drawn from memory and photorealism separately so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think there may be people that can fuse the two talents and do it from memory alone...probably an autistic savant. Pen drawing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/samuel-silvas-amazing-pho_n_1822572.html After viewing New York skline once from memory: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223790/Autistic-artist-draws-18ft-picture-New-York-skyline-memory.html

We see at least one GUT or ToE everyday...forgive them their scepticism...it's justified.

You can test here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58931-latex-testing/

Here's a quick latex tutorial: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

(My bold) Note: He is not addressing a fundamental article or phenomena like gravity....he is using the word world at the macro level and in the collective sense. Gravity is a part of the world and we use gravity to explain why things at the macro level do what they do. This discussion is not about the world...it is talking about a much more fundamental component of it and at that level things start to become more axiomatic ie resist deeper analysis.