StringJunky

I used to change the brand of my guitar strings with considerable frequency and I got called it by a friend of mine which quite amused me at the time. I used it first on an acoustic forum and couldn't be bothered to have a different name wherever i join up so StringJunky it is.

Make a folder or folders on your 98 desktop and copy everything into it/them then copy paste them to your chosen transfer medium flash stick disk etc then copy/paste from there to your chosen place/s on your xp machine.

Why's that? Can you point me to any material that discusses it? I've always had a hunch that too much is not good so I kind of went off it a long time ago but still happens sometimes when I'm in the stage before waking up.

How you put it was fine and understandable but a native English speaker would most likely word it as: "It's all hanging by a thread".

Would it be right to say one cannot observe them without interfering with them?

http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/spotsfloats.htm I would go and consult an ophthamologist.

Being nearly fifty years old, I wish the internet had bee invented and freely available in the Seventies...I wouldn't have needed drugs...a constant stream of varied information would have been enough to distract me from my downers. That would be a good subject to ask about...no internet access.

I was a long-term poly-drug user until a decade ago and my thoughts are pretty much aligned with yours. I have the same addiction for data input...that's why I come here.

I think any drug that is physiologically/psychologically pleasant is going to be habit-forming regardless of whether it is absent of physically addictive components. It will probably cause acute depression immediately after it has worn off and once a user learns that taking some more gets rid of that feeling the cycle of dependency may start. Psychological addiction should not be under-estimated...it can take a lot of effort to unlearn.

Religion doesn't seem to be such an issue overall in the UK so I don't have strong feelings about it like you atheist Americans seem to have. I suppose if it was in my face, like it seems to be for you, I probably would be more caustic and unforgiving in my attitude towards it.

Yes, i think he's as polarised as fundamentally religious people...the fact there aren't as many as him makes no difference.

He actively attempts to spread the concept of Atheism, therefore, he is evangelistic.

I beg to differ...Richard Dawkins is an Evangelical Atheist. Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism

Interesting...yes!...but it's got to work the other way as well...the electrodes must induce a thought as well. Do you reckon that's feasible eventually?

A cell phone could work if it had electrodes signalling to it by wireless transmission fixed to our skulls and the right software (as yet unobtainable)...a thought-transducing phone.

I'm quite happy for any hard athiest to respond. The point I was alluding to was not about honesty but conforming to the general scientific ethos of preserving some uncertainty in ones assessment of some things ie they are highly improbable but never impossible. iNow as vitriolic as he is, regarding religious matters, conforms to this view. To quote: I find it so incredibly mind bogglingly very unlikely as to not be worthy of any thought, but to maintain my integrity I have to stipulate that I could maybe possibly sort of kinda perhaps if you squint real hard potentially be wrong. I hope I haven't taken his quote out of his intended context. Is this quality not an important part of the scientific mindset?

If you are completely certain doesn't that compromise you as a scientist and puts you on the level of a zealot or fundamentalist (without the ranting and raving attribute!)? Genuine question not a criticism.

Andromeda and The Milky Way are part of the Local Group of galaxies and therefore not subject to the Hubble expansion because they are too strongly gravitationally bound to each other for it to have an effect.

Dark Water.

You can take consolation from the fact that there are people that believe the Universe popped into existence from nothing which is equally as "absurd", logically, as a Creator. A Universe coming from nothing is as 'valid' as Sky Fairies, Pixies, Unicorns et al. The people that ridicule religion do nothing to further the dissemination of science amongst those that may hold religious beliefs...they forever maintain the divide. For people that are supposed to be clever their attitude is very thick and short-sighted when one considers the aim of this forum is to primarily educate.

Anikumar You are struggling for an ontological description of space...science at this time cannot give you one. Science can only describe the behaviour of objects in space and this behaviour is experimentally and observationally consistent with the idea of a non-Euclidean geometrical space. Quantum physics may in future give a description, using virtual particle exchange, which might make you happier but at the moment it does not work out very well AFAIK and so GR, with its curved spacetime, remains the standard description. Even if/when QG comes to fruition the numbers generated by GR will still be the same (at above Planck dimensions) so scientists are quite happy with it. Don't beat yourself up or argue over what gravity or space is ...they don't know.

Yes, you are probably right...i took my eye off the ball and have lost the continuity of the discussion. I made up my mind a while ago.

Simply because of the fact that nothing doesn't exist. -Sorcerer Nothingness isn't a thing to be able to exist! It's the state of affairs where there is absolutely no something in existence. - ydoaps Aren't you both saying the same thing? If you are not it's rather subtle.

If I was running a social website that required a password I would implement a system that only allowed a very limited number of incorrect logins and then the system would be programmed to automatically lock out any further login attempts and send an email to the associated account to reset the password via a link in the email.

Part of the title of Ross's paper doesn't make sense to me...what is the "Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry"? It would make sense to me if it read; The Ontology of Non-Euclidean Geometry In Cosmology. Am I being thick here?