StringJunky

What sources/criteria do scientists here use to determine whether some methodology/idea is 'the norm' ie belongs in the Science categories and not Speculations. I understand perfectly why SFN filters like this, to make clear distinctions for learners like myself, and it slightly bemuses me why people get irate when their hypothesis gets transferred to Speculations. Is it just an arbitrary decision between the experts here or do you have a 'bible' or institution that you can consult?

If you have W7 you can tweak the battery notification settings to warn you to plug in at a higher than default level ( which is 10% on my Compaq) that helps you to maintain a life-extending shallow-charging routine. Here's a How To Geek article on it: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/39635/how-to-tweak-the-low-battery-action-in-windows-7/ It depends on how much time you need to be on battery at one time whether you need two or not. The way I look at it is if this routine gives me a solid usable consistent battery life over 5 or 6 years even if I can't use a fifth of it that's good enough for me because the laptop will be old at the current rate of technology. I wish I'd known this a few months ago when my laptop was new...it's already down from over 3 hours to between 2 and 2 1/2 hours now. I've been emptying the battery before recharging.

Running the laptop on mains with the battery in does not overcharge the battery...it switches off charge when full up. Phi To quote someone...Charging Li-ion is like the best form of diet...little and often. It prefers frequent shallow charges to deep ones from a flat battery. Here's a 'real-world' bit from a photographer who hammers his camera batteries: It also means that I never try to suck either one dry. Li-ion batteries prefer frequent and shallow discharges. If you do that you'll get far more total energy out of them. I don't know the exact numbers, but you'll get about four times as many charge cycles out of them if you only use 50% of the charge each time, and twenty times as many cycles if you only use 25% of the charge each time. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/battery-life.htm

Isn't that the same problem for a desktop? You are right, let it happen too many times and it will corrupt the OS. The best way upon further reading to get maximum life is to run two batteries, swapping them when one is about 80% discharged.

AFAIK you're going with the routine for the old NI-CAD's...it's different for Li-Ion's. Long story short, to maximise the life charge to 40-50% take out the battery and run laptop off the mains when you have it. Fully charge it when you need it. If you leave the battery in fully-charged all the time, the high temperature within the laptop will shorten its life which is the bane of Li-Ion's. Practically, the second-best scenario is to always run on the mains if you have to leave the battery in and keep the number of charge/discharge cycles to the absolute minimum ie don't pull out the mains lead everytime the battery is charged. Putting rubber feet or some such device to raise the laptop higher of the supporting surface to allow better cooling will help battery life as well in this scenario. If you want to splash out some dosh, a cooling pad is probably a good idea if you must leave the battery in. When you are using it on battery, fully charge but only run it down to about 20% capacity before recharging...don't fully discharge it in use as it puts a strain on them. Heat and repeated charge/ full discharge cycles are the killers...leaving the battery out is the easiest solution when not needed.

If you fear your past don't ever have a Facebook account, as that will surely come back to bite your a***!

The physical structure of rust, being open as opposed to densely compact, allows the ingress of more oxygen, moisture and electrolytes allowing it to spread...I think this is what people when they say rust causes more rust. Take another scenario with lead and it's oxide...once the oxide, which is dense and compact is sufficient to be impermeable to moisture and air, oxidation ceases and is therefore self-limiting unlike iron rust formation which continuously exposes new oxidizible surfaces until exhausted.

Here's part of an intro to a book on seismology that mentions: "Necessary mathematical tools including vector and tensor analysis, matrix algebra, Fourier analysis, statistics of errors, signal processing, and data inversion are introduced with many relevant examples". http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0865420785.html

Anything that's not mainstream finds it's way in Speculations...if your topic was crap it would be in Trash. If SFN mods didn't filter like this then learners (including myself) would get confused as to what is mainstream and what is not. I lurk the Physics Forums boards...they are quite ruthless and not amenable to discussing non-mainstream ideas. If there is a forum that can be labelled 'religiously' dogmatic it is that one. It's good in one way if you want rock-hard black and white science with a good dose of intolerance. It serves it's narrow focus and purpose well but the real world isn't like that and SFN suits me better as I know I can challenge the scientists here and they won't throw their qualifications at me as a rebuttal or wear them by their usernames like a suit of armour. I personally don't see Speculations as "the bin" although there is some crap there and I'm sure most of the seasoned users here don't either. Speculations is a symbol of SFN's flexibility and tolerance...you will certainly not find one in Physics Forums. You need to hang out here a bit more and you will see the method in their madness...it's entirely logical and without malice aforethought or narrow-mindedness.

This should be in Ethics.

I thought the same way you did at first as well but checked myself.

It seems that Paint.net has been ported to Linux as "Mono Paint" or "Paint Mono". I don't know what linux you are using but this is a link with Ubuntu in mind...that should cover Mint as well. You could have a look in the repository of your version of Linux to see if it's there. http://www.webupd8.org/2009/09/paintnet-for-linux-paintmono.html

I suspect diamond confused the 80 billion-140 billion figure as the age of the universe when it is actually the the possible range of its size or concluded, wrongly, that because the universe is that big it must be that old...he/she is not aware of inflation. Diamond Here's some straightforward cosmo links from the sticky in the Astro/Cosmo section on this site that will put you on the right track: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/

When you round off you don't move the decimal point which you have done there...it will still be 'nought point something' unless you are rounding to the nearest whole number which would be 1 in that example's case. If the last digit you are interested in is 5 or higher you round up by 1 the digit before that one. So, 8.888 would be 8.89 Here's a more complete explanation on rounding off: http://www.mathsteacher.com.au/year7/ch06_decimals/14_round/off.htm

So, without explicitly saying it but I think imply, Gaia is ultimately screwed and some miniscule sample of us, when technology permits, must drift off like spores into space to populate and probably ultimately devastate some other virgin world? That advancing intelligence would surely be better intensely focussed and used for understanding our nature and surmounting our collective biological programming to limit our numbers, better utilise and recycle our existing resources here that is in concert with the patterns of the Earth System? What you are saying, I do not disagree with but that migratory action only satisfies the urge to preserve our own species and a few other organisms we choose to take...that leaves the vast bulk of life (including humans) and the Earth System to suffer their fate. Turning my mind to the Earth itself what are we doing to the global flow, quality and distribution of water...are we disturbing it with our activities? What are or will be the consequences of that? Is there now proportionally more saline water than non-saline water than at some time in the past?

It's funny isn't it, I've removed the shackles of politics and ethics from this very important looming problem of Homo Sapiens with a high potential for reaching pathological population levels upon this fragile Earth and there's no takers? Is it possible to have an emotionally detached scientifically-based conversation about the Human Race's collective behaviour as though they were just specimens in a jar? I intended this thread to be a journey with no specific path or conclusion in mind but just tempered with discipline and evidence when asked.

Swansont If you stopped replying now, you would be justified...you are talking to a brick wall. Even if Owl hasn't, as a bystander, I learnt loads...thanks.

If it works, might such a device be good as a 'spot' weed killer for eliminating individual deep-rooted weeds like Dandelions on well-tended lawns? Chemical treatment and manual removal can be hit and miss or too broad in effect on lawns in this situation. If you could fatally electrocute the plant first then leaving a bit of root behind when you dig it up won't matter. Dandelions were the bane of my Grandfather's life and we often left reproducible fragments behind after extraction.

All I use is the bold, italic and underline...I find these three more than ample for my needs in getting anything across. "Fonts", "sizes" and "text colour" are the ones that are prone to abuse I think...these are largely unnecessary imo.

That's fine Greg, as long as any effects noted on humans are viewed scientifically like we would on any other species. As long as it's not viewed with any emotional/political/ethical baggage. In this discussive scenario I just want homo sapiens to be viewed like any other earth-bound organism.

I already asked a similar question but now realise its scope was too narrow so I've broadened it to encompass the Earth System or 'Gaia' if you understand what that means. Imagine you are an ET scientist with the same tools, contemporary knowledge and resources but with no emotional affinity/identity* to the human race who has come to study the effects of human population growth on this blue/green rock's bio/physical/chemical mechanisms, resources and it's other inhabitants. What are they? *Same again here please, no politics or ethics and be prepared to pull out some evidence to support yourself if asked...this is the science section.

AFAIK when you overwrite a track the read/write head is never exactly in alignment as it was previously written so there is always a trace that can be forensically read with the right equipment. With this in mind a track has to be overwritten at least 8 or 10 times to cover the desired area before forensic services (using them as the benchmark) in normal cases will give up but I have read if they really wanted any information that badly they can still get it. HD destruction is the only foolproof secure deletion technique.

If I found a wallet full of money I would seek to return it to its owner because it would make me happy to make them happy...is that the selfish gene in action acting in a subtle way or have I transcended my innate programming to become altruistic?

Ants and termites et al don't work for themselves, they work for the 'collective organism' that is their colony and maybe generosity with no immediate personal gratification on our part as humans is a nod in that direction. That behaviour of cooperation favours a more functional society, which makes evolutionary sense for perpetuating the species and in a roundabout way hopefully favours the continuation of the offspring, or, more specifically, the genes of the giver although not directly from the person they have been generous to but will likely receive the benefit of someone elses generosity...the act of generosity is indirectly reciprocated. Put another way, the subconscious social mechanism, if uttered verbally, goes something like: "I will help you, if you help someone else and someone else from our group will help me". The 'reward' path is non-linear and in effect that action is an investment paid into our 'colony' to keep it functionally healthy thus ensuring the long term survival of the progeny of the giver...the motive is ultimately selfish.

We don't know it's in the sky now...only that its photons are still reaching us. You couldn't confirm that it is here now for another 4.37 years from this moment.