StringJunky

That might be because there was no one on the moon filming them landing on the moon from another vantage point...absolute irrefutable proof is not possible. You have to put ALL the evidence together to confirm it. There was a thread on on this some time ago and when all the evidence that was compiled in thread was taken together the only conclusion that could be drawn was that it DID happen. I was seven when they did it and the atmosphere at the time was momentous...unless you were around at the time of the Apollo landings it's hard to describe what an affront to all those who helped achieve this awesome feat what a suggestion to the contrary is. Every accusation, every point was trivially dismissed in that thread. Too many people were involved in the project and too many people were watching for a conspiracy to deceive to be successful. Here's the latest NASA pictures of remnants of those missions that are still evident on the moon: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/06/new_lunar_images/

Understood. You are correct in assuming that I have not used the rep system in this thread although I do use it positively for points well made or negatively if I think someone is being a jerk in some way. I never minus anyone if I just disagree with them because they are entitled to their considered opinion. I have no real knowledge in this field, or indeed most sciences in general, so my posts are presented and intended as exploratory...your input on this subject is interesting so far.

The joke seems to be based on the (erroneous) premise that Evolution is a goal-driven mechanism ie towards "better" and the buzzards still aren't yet evolved enough to take their meal to the side of the road where it's safer. Could have been authored by an evolution-denier or even somebody who understands evolution but is just being humorously absurd when they viewed it from said purpose-driven viewpoint.

We had a discussion about this recently. The possibilities are many, including what Phi suggests, but the reasons could be condensed down to because green is a 'good fit', on the whole, for plants to do what they need to do given the conditions on terrestrial Earth.. Evolution is not about producing the optimum characteristics but the fittest in any given environment...it's a relative thing not an absolute. The earliest photosynthetic organisms that used green and evolved to plants were evolutionarily favoured....at some pivotal period in the history of chlorophyll-utilising organisms, conditions on early Earth facilitated their reproduction and subsequent domination. To reiterate more generally, Evolution is not some hidden embedded code or algorithm driving things to evolve to some state of ultimate perfection but a mix of random mutation and prevailing circumstance that allows some characteristics to multiply over time...pot luck basically. .

I found a manual for the DU 700 series...don't if that will help you in some way or even give clues to the correct manual. http://users.stlcc.edu/Departments/fvbio/Spectrophotometer_DU700_Manual.pdf

Does conditioning cloud the distinction that you make? For instance, police-horses are routinely trained by repeated exposure to be physically non-reactive to sudden noises hence they are not necessarily making a premeditated decision not to run away, so, it could be argued they still don't meet the criteria for having a mind...they've been behaviourally reprogrammed. Does a horse have a mind or is it just a passive entity that instinctively responds to internal and external stimuli? I suppose trying to define 'mind' is like trying to define 'life'...it's not a single property or criterion that defines it but several. What would be the minimum required parameters for something to be said to have a mind?

Is self-consciousness a necessary pre-requisite of having a mind do you think? Is it this cognitive property of being able to objectively visualise one's position in space from an outside vantage point that allows proactive behaviours? By 'proactive' I am assuming you mean it is the decisive ability to act counter to one's instinct if circumstances demand it or some other reason. even just simple choice from a range of presented options.

Great stuff and what an artisan of his craft...es magnifico!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_nutrition

Due to the high price of copper and increasingly punishing economic climate, the railway and electricity companies are experiencing extensive levels of copper theft according to the British Transport Police to the tune of £770m per annum or £2 million pounds a day! I hear news quite frequently in my locality that the railway line has had a load of its signal cable nicked that runs alongside the track and my friend who lays cables himself quite often comes back to work in the morning to find the cable he has laid the day before has been pulled out necessitating replacement. This all-to-frequent phenomenon had me mulling on ideas that could be implemented to make things difficult for thieves to to sell their ill-gotten gains so that it wasn't viable for them. Inspired by the practice of putting red dye in diesel for sole use by industries that are allowed to use it I thought maybe infrastructure copper (that used in the country's infrastructure) could be chemically treated the same way so that it could be clearly differentiated from copper from other sources. What chemical marker could be used that would be suitable without appreciably affecting its conductive properties? It should have two properties...visibly colour the metal and be easily tested and traceable, even in miniscule amounts, in the event that attempts were made to 'dilute' the infrastructure copper with copper from other permissible sources. The other thing was that only specially-designated and licensed metal re-processors, who will have fully-traceable records and accountability for all movements of this metal, should be allowed to handle it. Responses and criticisms of my idea are invited along with any other ideas people here can come up with.

Here's a UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee report relating to Homeopathy if you think iNow is being too harsh... it's effect is no better than a placebo.: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4504.htm#a7 "... We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science.[57]" " We consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible." "Dr Ben Goldacre, a medical doctor and journalist, also disagreed: There have now been around 200 trials of homeopathy against placebo sugar pills and, taken collectively, they show that there is no evidence that homeopathy pills are any better than a placebo. […] it is not worth doing any more placebo controlled trials because you would be throwing good money after bad and you would have to have a huge number of very strongly positive trials to outweigh all of the negative ones.[100]"

Fair enough, it works there...that's all that matters. Every country is different with varied population makeups and problems so the 'ideal' judicial system or level of relative severity will vary also between them. John B's comment nailed it really, for me, as a general way of describing the reality of the situation across the world.

Is that good?

You could put another adjustable inline dusk-to-dawn sensor switch in the electrical path before the sensor/light. Your sensor/light won't come on until your new switch turns on at your desired setting. They don't seem expensive here in the UK. http://www.lightingstyles.co.uk/Exterior-garden-lighting/PIR-detection-sensor-lights/Electronic_sunset_timer_switch.htm

What about upper left? I just signed on to have a look but there is no option to revert...being a new account I probably don't get the option to use the old one.

I don't know anything about YM (Gmail myself) but it would seem they have brought out a new updated but beta version...have you updated to this? You can apparently revert it back to the Classic by clicking on the right upper corner OPTION link and click SWITCH BACK TO YAHOO CLASSIC. It is probable there are some teething problems with the new version which is in beta and it's best to stay away for now.

Click on My Settings > Profile > Friends > Enabled/Only Add When I approve or Disabled/Allow Addition Without Approving.

I don't know enough yet to have an opinion on the nature of space...I just follow the theories and hypotheses, in the time that I have, that are available within conventional astro-cosmo research as pointed at by physicists here. Unless I decide to take up the required advanced math as a hobby it's highly unlikely that I will ever be adept enough to form a realistically viable opinion of my own. The OP should have asked this question in the Astro Cosmo section imo and got the conventional view first rather than open themselves to potential confusion and misinformation from other people's personal ideas in Speculations. Their question is Astro/Cosmo 101 and Dr Rocket pointed justinw to the right place in Cosmo Basics. My link was given in the same spirit...a quick conventional overview of the BB and Relativity's problems with it. The article on Quantum Gravity from the same site as I linked before mentions some possible quantum descriptions of what space is.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outreach/What_We_Research/Cosmology_%26_Gravitation/

We should ecstatically dance and rejoice when someone concedes their hypothesis doesn't mirror reality! It is a very rare and heart-warming phenomenon indeed. I think we see it maybe once or twice a year. It's nice when you come across real thinkers who will change direction when solid evidence is given that clearly contradicts their fledgling idea...this is the most important quality of a good scientist imo; the ability to let go of an idea when evidence suggests otherwise. Not an easy talent to acquire judging by how rare it is that we see a graceful surrender on these boards.

A crackpot idea is not necessarily an indication of a person's lack of intelligence but more likely a lack of familiarity with the subject they are writing about. Attacking my intelligence is not an acceptable way of supporting your view and is loaded with "negative connotations". Pot. Kettle. Black?

Phi's made the ground rules for this thread quite clear and the mods can edit or reprimand, as required, those posts that don't fulfill his criteria.

Mods Interesting though this is, it's wandering away from the pure science of the mind/brain relationship and should be in Philosophy or Speculations now I think.

From Wiki: Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is an organosulfur compound with the formula (CH3)2SO. This colorless liquid is an important polar aprotic solvent that dissolves both polar and nonpolar compounds and is miscible in a wide range of organic solvents as well as water. It penetrates the skin very readily, giving it the unusual property for many individuals of being secreted onto the surface of the tongue after contact with the skin and causing a garlic-like taste in the mouth.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_sulfoxide I don't know about its efficacy on its own for local pain relief but it definitely penetrates skin very well and is used as a carrier for other products when they need to be applied topically.

What I meant was, some users who apply DMSO topically experience a taste of garlic in their mouth, implying the substance is absorbed into their body and the taste receptors are triggered by it causing that taste sensation.