tomgwyther

I think we had this debate a couple of years ago. I'd advocate tying money to anything of substance, be that, Gold, Silver, Energy, Giant toroid stones or belly-button fluff. At present, money's value is tied to the borrowers pledge of debt and their credibility to repay, or pledge of capital or consideration for that debt. The only way the money can exist for this debt to be repaid, is for it to be borrowed in the manner stated above. The application of interest makes the above scenario mathematically self-defeating, as there is only enough liquidity (Money) to pay the principle of the loan, the money to pay the interest has not been borrowed into existence yet. This makes, bankruptcy, foreclosures, economic collapses on individual and national scales, literally built into the current monetary system. The Money = Energy / Energy = Money, - although not a silver bullet - is actually a very sensible and pragmatic approach to trade and commerce The current: Money = Debt / Debt = Money system is just retarded.

I fear that any attempt - such as this - to so directly attach the value of currency to the value of real-world goods would be met with fierce opposition by the banks. "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. ... This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard." Alan Greenspan

Here at SFN we offer free acoustic/sound engineering advise! In short: acoustic tiles on your side of the adjoining wall. if you're going to strap the wall, you may also consider an acoustic lagging in the wall for extra sound proofing. Without knowing the construction of the building; it's quite difficult to advise. By fare the most difficult problem is going to be insulating the ceiling unless the ceiling is concrete also. If you're putting ina false or floating ceiling, it would be best to lag that as well. Stuff it with as much fluff as you can. The heat insulating fibre glass foam you put in your attic is also quite a good sound insulator. Make sure any/all sound insulation goes right to the edge; leave no gaps. You can also try reducing the ambient noise in your cafe as well by adding acoustic tiles on opposing walls and bass traps in the corners. Don't forget, the application of people will also reduce the ambient sound in a room. In an acoustically 'bright' room I often engineer a system to be too present at a certain band-width, knowing that this frequency band will be reduced and the music will sound right once the audience is in. As with anything, the more money you spend' the better the result. 'Tom's on-the-cheap guide to sound-ending!' Those nobbly foam mattress covers can substitute for professional acoustic foam. Hessian (sack material) curtains, or hanging rugs on walls will reduce ambient noise. loft insulation reduces noise also. and not forgetting the ever faithful egg-boxes on the walls. Remember: RAD... reflect, absorb, diffuse. p.s check with the buildings inspector, fire code etc, before installing non-standard fixtures. Some foams are flammable. IIRC. In theatres and music venues in the UK at least. You should be able to hold a flame against a fabric for about 10 seconds, the fire should extinguish itself after another 10 seconds; the fabric should stop smouldering after a minute. Also, the regulations for everything are more strict if the venue has a paying audience or the venue is to be granted an entertainment license.

This would be pretty much impossible in an acoustic environment, Such as a bedroom. Unless: If the offending noise was coming through the window, you could place a microphone outside, with an array of speakers covering the window inside. Then use the same phase altering hardware as described in the noise cancelling headphones to cancel the noise coming through the window. Probably be cheaper to buy a new apartment though. you could get a second glaze on the window. i.e. a sheet of perspex which could be attached to the window frame without damaging it. this also keeps the heat in during the winter. You could also try sleeping with earplugs, although this might not be ideal as they can get itchy, plus you can hear your own breathing, heart-beat and other bodily noises, maybe a little too clearly. you could build a sort of 'vocal booth screen'. I use them in the studio to cut out ambient or extraneous noise. It would basically be a piece of plywood, with one side covered in acoustic tiles. If it were the same size and shape of the window, you could put it in the window frame at night and take it down in the morning. The cheapest option maybe to simply 'get over it'. I mean this in the nicest possible way. it's likely that after a while, your brain will get used to the traffic noise and not wake you up too early. When I moved to my house, the church opposite would wake me up early on Sunday by ringing its bells. these days I don't notice it.

The table and the tree retain their properties without them being looked at. For example, i can close my eyes and observe or measure a table by reaching out and touching it, it still has all the tabley qualities I would expect. the same would be true of the two people looking at each other in a mirror at 45 degrees; they could close their eyes and touch, hear or smell each other. A rainbow needs to have a lens, a retina and a brain to exist. the conditions for a rainbow may be present, but the appearance of a seemingly three dimensional object in the sky is not.

This is as I suspected. in that, as opposed to a table or tree, which does exist irrespective of the presence or absence of an observer. A rainbow or other similar phenomena needs a conscious observer in order to be diagnosed as a rainbow... In order to exist.

So postulate #2 is demonstratively true, whereas postulate #1 is somewhat subjectively true. That is, the conditions for the appearance of a rainbow would all be there except for the observer whom is necessary for the rainbow to exist.

Would I be right in think that: 1. In order for a rainbow to exist; it must be observed 2. There are as many rainbows as there are people looking at rainbows. The reason I ask is this. A while ago I was at my mothers house, her lounge has an extensive view over the Solent. (Solent: a straight of ocean between the Isle of Wight and main land England) I was stood at the window, while she was sat on the couch, about 6' away. We both observed a rainbow. She asked "You have a better view of that rainbow than me, how far round does that rainbow go? How big is it? my view is obscured by the window frame." "From my point-of-view, I can see both ends of it touching the horizon, but then your observation of half a rainbow is equally valid." I replied. "How can that be?" she said "Surely you have a better view of the rainbow as you're stood nearer the window." I then went on to explain about Water droplets, 30 degree angles, spectra, refraction etc etc and that the people on the beach in front of the house would have a different view of the rainbow, which would be equally as valid as our own. This episode eventually led me to the conclusions (1&2) above. So, are they correct? I've included this slightly appalling picture in an attempt to illustrate the two view points.

Having video evidence of macro-evolution via natural selection is for the most part, impossible. The measuring device is inappropriate for data collection. Cameras generally only record a few hours of footage, moreover it only been around for about 100 years, not the millions of years needed to record such data. You can no more use a camera for evolutionary research; than use a toaster for medical research. Or a washing machine to observe supernovae.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts Evolution does have plenty of observable data, where as the other two do not. It does not come down to personal choice. I, for one, did not choose to believe in evolution via natural selection, any more than I chose to believe that Paris is in France.

You're looking at the wrong person; what of the man walking in-front of the woman. he's the key. Either: She is nagging the man in front whilst adjusting her hair clip, or... She's scratching a really tough bit of eczema, whilst eating/chewing gum, or... She really is a time traveller; using a phone to call the man in front. Notice how he puts his hand in his breast pocket to remove something just before the woman starts talking. cue the X-files music now!

From Wikipedia A cervical rib is a supernumerary (or extra) rib which arises from the seventh cervical vertebra. It is a congenital abnormality located above the normal first rib. A cervical rib is present in only about 1 in 500 (0.2%) of people;[1] in even rarer cases, an individual may have two cervical ribs. The presence of a cervical rib can cause a form of thoracic outlet syndrome due to compression of the lower trunk of the brachial plexus or subclavian artery. These structures are entrapped between the cervical rib and scalenus muscle. It appears that the condition is congenital. Also, excess bone growth can occur after repeat trauma.

In short: finding Bin laden is irrelevant and long forgotten; much like finding WMD's in Iraq. As for pictorial representations of the prophet Mohamed; it is forbidden in Muslim culture. The Islamist movement of which Bin Laden was a part apparently see fit to use violence against such people who draw pictures of Mohamed..

To refer back to the OP. i remembered a piece of information regarding how much land a person needs to sustain his or herself. it doesn't - per se - assert that one person requires 'X' amount of land to survive and that the optimum number of people is 'Y'. But ir describes how many people the Earth can sustain depending on their various living standards. it does however give an average amount of land needed. Here is the link. it's from an episode of BBC Horizon. you'll need to watch the part 7:00 minutes into the video to watch the piece I refer to. My link A general paraphrased synopsis goes something like this: William Reese has said that you might have 10bn people living at one level or 1 bn people living at a more comfortable level. carrying capacity is a flexible idea: you simply divide the total number of people with the productivity of the Earth. Reese has worked out that the productive biomass of the Earth can be divided into 'Global hectares' and that fairly distributed, there would be two global hectares each. Africa uses 1.37 Global hectares: India uses 0.89: China uses 2.11: Europe uses 4.45 with Britain using 5.33 and USA using 9.42 I would also strongly advise watching the entire documentary as it covers many of the various topics, questions, opinions and ideas raised in this thread. On Youtube its divided into six part which should be easily navigable via the link I've posted. p.s I have read all posts on this topic; but only very quickly. I apologise if something is raised in the youtube link which has already been mentioned.

'X' is most likely a vowel (probably 'O') 'N' I think is actually a 'T' and 'J' is probably an 'E' A, C, E, O, P and V don't appear in either post and so would represent less common letters of the alphabet. Am I on the right track?

Years ago, the native language in Kentucky was Shawnee. later, people arrived who brought their language to the area - English. a bit later some more people arrived who brought their language (Spanish) to the area. language simply changes by popular demand. English itself is made up of other languages, (Latin, Greek, German, French, Gaelic to name a few) English wouldn't exist as a language if it weren't for immigration. You are merely experiencing the transient nature of language via an automated telephone banking system. Remain calm; there is nothing to fear. You yourself do not speak the native language of your area, you merely speak the most popular language at a given time.

"Bmfy nx ymj xnlsknhfshj tk ymj szrgjw xnc? Uqjfxj wjuqd ns htij. " Can you write a longer sentence in this code please?

I would beg to differ on the idea a child is more adept at learning [a new language] than an adult as being pseudoscientific. The brain of a young child is very much more plastic than that of an adult. A child's brain is in the process of forming newer and more permanent neural connections than an adults. Children can learn the words, the accent, the grammar and the vernacular of a language within a few years in a way an adult cannot. For example: a friend of mind was born in Italy and came to England when he was ten years old. He is now 35 years old. Although he has spent the majority of his life in England; learning English, he still speaks with an accent and with hints of Italian grammar. The speech centres of the brain concerned with language - not simply words - are formed at a very early age. In the cases of children who are locked in basements throughout their child hood (The case of Genie for example) they are able to learn new words for things, but the ability to learn and use language affectively is irreparably lost because the period in which we learn language happen at a young age. As for extending the period in which we learn language, I can think of no way to do this. the best way is to immerse ones self in that language; use it everyday with other native speakers. So as you tend not to think in your own language and then translate it, more that you think in the second language as well. The ability to learn a new language is not lost in adulthood, simply compromised. I for example can speak French, but a native French speaker can recognise that it's not my first language; I often get the syntax and grammar wrong, and I speak it with a strong English accent. Also, I can sing Spanish song lyrics to a degree that a native Spanish speaker can't tell I'm English and thinks I've been speaking Spanish all my life. But I have little to no idea what I'm singing about, nor could I construct a sentence in Spanish let alone hold a conversation. These two facets of language cross over whenever I visit America. Born, brought up and living in England, but on a steady diet of U.S television plus frequent trips to new York and California mean i can blend in un-noticed. For one thing, working in Nevada last year, I found it much easier to get along if I spoke like a native then if I spoke in my normal accent which few people could fully understand. Then I could freak people out by reverting back to my thick, southern English accent. A bit like Hugh Laurie when he plays 'House' and then does and interview on Letterman.

A couple of Jacob's ladder either side of the door would look good too. As for the building; the ideal lab would have to be a hollowed out volcano. if you don't have one nearby, some sort small of aircraft hanger or industrial unit would give you the space for some of the madder experiments.

i wasn't thinking specifically of running a gloss black line along side the traditional white line, rather combining the effects of it with the white line. that is: To have a Gloss white lines. I'd need to experiment with it. I had a look round for a picture illustrating this but couldn't find one. next time i notice it, I'll take a picture with my phone maybe. Good idea to take itup with The royal society for the prevention of accidents. I'll have a look at their website.

Speaking from experience, I'd exercise caution in attempting such an experiment. I myself have fallen victim to a 'spiked' drink. I drank my female friend's beer. my total alcohol consumption was just two pints of lager. I don't remember anything past getting in the car (Luckily she drove home) I had to be rolled over to stop from choking on my own vomit. It could have been much worse; I was virtually unconsious through out the whole ordeal Also, my friend - Michelle - had a drink spiked, possibly with Rohipnol, we're not sure. After about an hour in the bar, she collapsed and was sick and foaming at the mouth. we called the emergency services who sent an ambulance. she was loaded in. on the way to the hospital, her heart stopped and she had to be resuscitated, she was clinically dead for about a minute. There are a few other cases which spring to mind, I was a bar manger for about 9 years so I witnessed this sort of thing a lot. Those two are the ones which i remember the most. You may wish to have a paramedic on hand if you're attempting to mix alcohol with so-called date rape drugs. p.s. she made a full recovery and has just had twin boys.

Not sure if there is a stop or give way sign on that particular intersection, the gloss paint idea wasn't specifically aim at that one place, more just roads in general. Cat's eyes work on straight road and in any case you can figure out where the middle of the road is. It's mostly roundabouts and intersections which pose a problem. you can even watch people following the black lines of tar rather than the white lines on some bits of road near me.

It's an idea which has been in my mind for years; the idea of using shiny gloss paint for road markings. It's fresh in my mind again as recently, a friend of my mother was killed in a road accident because she could not see the road makings. The road in question is renowned for being an accident black-spot. It forms a sort of 'Y' shape, where people coming from the top-left of the 'Y' don't realise that they must give way to those coming from the top right. People crash into one another because they think they're just driving along a normal stretch of road with a slight bend in it, unaware that another vehicle is coming to hit them in the side. Something I've noticed when driving in wet weather, especially when it's dark, or when the sun is low in the sky, is that you cannot clearly see road markings, most importantly on round-abouts and intersections. One thing I can see very clearly are the lines of glossy black tar which is used to seal joins in the road after road works. these lines show up very clearly and sometimes are themselves mistaken for road markings. So, my question is this... Why not use high gloss paint for road markings?

My bad Michel... got my Greek and Latin mixed up. here's a better definition for Sanford from Wiki. In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, My Greek speaking is limited rude words and ordering fast food!

Does his nose grow if he makes a statement about the past which is false, or does it grow if he makes a false assumption or prediction about a future event. or both? it's quite a good example of a paradox.