J'Dona

Ah, right. Must have been the E-Type, I knew it was one of the really expensive ones. The logo itself does wobble a bit as it moves. Gah, I typed out an entire explanation of how to calculate rps from the car's speed, before I realised that you already knew admiral_ju00. :S I don't know how you'd sort out the images you would need to print to make the logo visible just on that, sorry.

They have those already... I believe certain Rolls Royce cars have centers in the hubcaps that (more or less) stay still as the middles move separately from the wheels. I'll have to look up on that later as I've got to go now, but maybe you can Google it.

I remember that... iirc the police and army forces they sent in were sympathetic at first but eventually they took command of the situation and sent the tankers out. I thought it was good though while it was happening, as there was cleaner air and less cars for a while. Mind you, I don't have a job or car yet, so that's just my view of it. The protestors let out tankers for emergency services though. It's interesting... 81.9 pence per litre would equate (at current exchange rates) to about $1.46 per litre, or $5.53 per US gallon. I guess that reflects how the cost of living over here is just generally higher. :/ Not sure how things are now as I don't pay for these sort of things, but according to a BBC News article from the 7th of May UK prices have now reached 80p per litre, which is $1.43 per litre, just below the petrol crisis point. Here's the article in case anyone wants it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3693391.stm As for hydrogen cars... I think they should be concentrating more on pure alternative sources like solar and hydroelectric and waste-recycling related ones like biomass, than on hydrogen cars, since to manufacture the hydrogen with water instead of fossil fuels (which are the same problem as without hydrogen cars) they're going to use power, and that power needs to come from renewable sources to avoid the same problems. It is possible to have hydrogen cars without using fossil fuels at all... it's just very expensive by current methods, so they need to put more research into it. I'm worried about the pollution they would put out though, even though it would be far less than fossil fuel cars. I know it's just water, but water is a greenhouse gas, and replacing smog layers over cities with rainclouds still has its problems. With extra rain and temperature, the area in and around some large cities might turn into a tropical climate.

That "owning parts of the moon" thing is a complete scam :/ What happened is that countries basically got together and agreed that none could lay claim to the moon, but that didn't apply to corporations, which is a pretty big loophole considering that corporations pretty much own the world now anyway. So some guy noticed this, and decided that he "owned the moon", then promptly sold it to a company who is now selling plots of it at about £10 an acre (about $18) for future development. And people are buying these? But it would be cool if Google had a server there... a new one, that is. *conpirational glance* *logs off quickly*

A: White By the way, the tallest fully habitable building is actually this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/10/17/taiwan.tower/ The internal construction isn't fully complete but it has reached its full height. Being of Canadian birth myself I wish the CN Tower were the tallest, but it's only habitable up to about three quarters of the way or something. Anyway, back to the questions: Q: EU or no EU?

Hehe Then they'd be making the mistake. You've got friends who can help them to "reconsider" their interpretation of the interview. I've got a BB gun that looks real enough but my brother's got the real hardware, and he's in Lincoln, which would probably be closer... (note: I'm lying) That reminds me of one of my friends at college actually... she and I were two of the three students applying to Cambridge at our college, and she told me after that as she waited outside the interview room for hers the guy before her suddenly stormed out, yelling: "Fine then" or something along those lines, with a vile expression on his face. When she got in the interviewers were bristling, and were being nasty to her and saying things like "It's not a hard question" after they'd chucked a random brick of jargon at her. She didn't get in.

I saw that one... the most disturbing part was when the chlorine tanker got hit and started leaking. I don't know how it happened in it as I wasn't watching the entire time, but I assume it was specifically targeted by terrorists in it. They said that the gas would have killed about 2000 people... :/ In total about as many people would have died in that scenario as on 9/11. I'm not surprised that people who thought that it was "too realistic" complained; if they'd just switched to that channel they might have thought that it was real. That's what happened when the War of the Worlds was aired on radio, after all, and people commited suicide from that.

Right... well, since I was only 16 when I first applied (and had already finished my A-Levels, don't ask) I only put Cambridge on and went for deferred because I planned on reapplying to Cambridge plus others in case I didn't get in (which I didn't) because I had time on my side. It's a bit depressing though... being 2 years ahead of the game for as long as I can remember and then blowing them on extra A-Levels (a new one and a retake, Cambridge doesn't like an AABC) and a gap year - I know that universities like both of those but it still feels like I'm standing still now. :/ But yes, I'll be putting Imperial College as my secondary as I've heard very good things about it, and some say it's even better than Oxbridge (though the Times University Guide out today says that Oxford is the top). I also like the idea of going to college on a block whose only other building aside from Imperial College is the Natural History Museum. I'd be just as happy with Imperial as Cambridge. The only problem I see is that Physics is losing its appeal to me... mostly because it's been a year since I did it and I haven't really read up on it, though next year I intend to heavily, and I'll try to memorise The Elegant Universe But I'm almost more interested in writing now, fiction that is, though that's just something I'd like to do alongside a career in science. But anyway, don't want to talk about myself. I'm more concerned about the questions they ask, since that's where I messed up last time. In the Times T2 today they've got a list of some of the questions they've asked at Oxbridge in the past (though not for physics in particular): "What affect on the whole society does someone crashing into a lamppost have?" "Tell me about a banana." "Calculate the average interatomic spacings particles in the room." (maybe a typo in the Times, I'm just dictating) "How do you define baldness?" "Why don't plants have brains?" "Is this can of corned beef safe?" "Is it possible to split the human brain in two and create two identical people?" "How do you know if 2+2=4 in the past?" "If it is 12pm, what is the exact time here in Oxford?" My own questions were a lot simpler: sketch this curve, which equation matches the graph, draw me graphs to show the displacement of this ball on a spring over time... and incidentally I'm pathetic with graphs so I crumbled (though that was my fault, as I'd told them we'd finished Pure 4, but we still had the graphs section left to do). I messed up and accidentally wrote down the equation for the energy stored in a spring as 1/2k2x instead of 1/2kx2. I'm sure that really impressed the two guys with Ph.D.'s who were watching me.

*shudder* No, please don't, after going through the standardised exam system "discuss" makes my blood run cold, just like my alarm clock at any time other than 7:45AM. As for the question, I'm not so sure about how it all works, but if the protons and neutrons were smaller (not the electrons, as according to what I've been told so far they're point bodies), then the quarks in them would need to be closer together, and that would require changes in the strong nuclear force (or is it the weak?). I still don't know why it varies weirdly in the way it does, so I can't make any guesses as to how that might be possible. :/

3? Because You get either W/W/W, W/W/B, W/B/W, B/W/W, W/B/B, B/W/B, B/B/W, B/B/B, and there are at least two of one colour in each case? Unless they're left and right footed socks as well (before you think I'm totally wrong), in which case I agree with atinymonkey, it would be 5. Thanks for those Microsoft questions atiny, they're pretty good. I was able to do most of them, though not at all sure about the daughter age one, need to look at it some more...

I hear what you're saying mooeypoo, but I'm just trying to force the idea of a scientific debate into ExtraSense by constantly telling him about the scientific reasoning behind his assumptions. I know it's probably not going to get anywhere, but I'm making one more shot at it at least (probably the last, as I'm not going to get anywhere). :/ Thanks very much for your answer, as it involves at least some science. You've admitted that life would be different on Mars than on Earth. This is quite some progress. However, as Sayonara3 pointed out, if that is the case (which is most likely), your own explanation disagrees with the observations of every one of your pictures. Do you really mean to suggest that a plant with fundamentally altered cell structures would still be the same as ones on Earth? Not just for plants but for animals as well? If a plant developed to survive in these conditions, the internal structure would be radically altered. The cell walls and membranes would be stronger, and phloem and xylem tubes would need to be thicker or more durable to reduce the amount of water and sugars lost due to vaporisation under the low pressures. The atmosphere of Mars is tinted red/pink, so the leaves might be coloured blue/green to collect it more efficiently. Planet-wide dust storms would lead to natural selection favouring plants that did not reproduce via berries, which would otherwise be destroyed as they were torn up and smashed against rocks. The stomata would need to be smaller to reduce the amount of water lost and dust that enters the leaf, so as a result the amount of photosynthesis occuring would be less. Lower gravity might allow stalk height and leaf shape/size to be greater (thus affecting the way in which berries grow and the nutrients they contain) but these plants would not survive in dust storms as they would be torn apart too easily. I've drawn those ideas from what I learned about plants in my A-Level Environmental Science, which I did almost a year ago (no Biology GCSE or A-Level, and even then, this is stuff of a grade that anyone who knew anything more about biology would laugh at for being so basic, I'm sure). The point is this: once you have accepted that fundamental biology on Mars would be radically different from that on Earth, it is not logical to assume that it would look the same, in any way shape or form. Given that you accept their cells are different, how do you explain those further contradictions? Also, about those "names" of physics you listed, I do believe we covered just about every one of those in some form in A-Level physics (pre-university). I'm sure mooeypoo does too, as according to his profile he's got a degree in the subject. What I'd like to know is what all this has to do with cell biology.

A: The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the first one, not all parts of the "trilogy") Q: What's the tallest fully habitable building in the world at the moment?

Ah, right. Thought that might of been the case. Okay, here: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." - Dan Quayle Works the same, just as funny.

This thread is for anyone who applied to, is applying to or is thinking of applying to university. The university students or graduates can tell of their experiences, and us pre-undergraduates can fret over it. I'm really asking this because I had my interview at Cambridge (UK) and was rejected (no surprise, as the interview went horribly), and I'm reapplying next year. They ask some really strange questions at Oxbridge, or so I've heard ("Tell me about a banana. How would you weigh your head?"), though my own questions were easier and I still managed to mess it up... I've got to unsuppress the memory before I can talk about it. So, what sort of questions were you asked? What sort of interviews and what kinds of people? Any advice for the newbies?

You do realise that plant cells on Mars would quite possibly explode, due to the pressure difference as compared to Earth? And that berries cannot decompose on Mars because there is no oxygen? And that there are no such things as "stone branches", and that planet-wide dust storms rather would harm plants more than rocks, as the dust and grit tears up the leaves and/or clots the stomata on them, rendering them incapable of processing carbon dioxide? And that by putting thumbs-up signs and smileys in all your posts you only appear even more patronising, exuding the image of the classic blissful ignoramus, which would be all right if you weren't just using this forum as a valve down which to force your disproven theories into the scientific mainstream? Please, just answer even one of these points (except the last, which was rude of me and not an argument anyway). If you can't, then you have to admit that you don't have the scientific knowledge to claim that your theories are correct. If you can, then why don't you?

A: Erm, would that be Energy = Mass x (Speed of light) squared, in SI units? That is assuming that mass and the speed of light are both constant (the latter having come under some question lately). I get the feeling that this is a trick question and that I'm just making a fool of myself; the "precise" worries me, hence my fallback assumptions. Q: How do you do superscript and subscript when typing messages here? EDIT: Thanks!

At the risk of sounding political (not trying to, I think these would be hilarious coming from anyone) here are a couple great quotes from George W. Bush Jr: "For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."—Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002 And on a more scientific note: "Mars is essentially in the same orbit...Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." - Governor George W. Bush, Jr., Aug. 11, 1994

We can't communicate with animals yet though, so we can't be sure how intelligent some animals are though we can certainly make a good guess. Dolphins are very intelligent; we think they communicate with one another and they can form sentences and develop new relationships between things by using special undwerwater keyboards in experiments. Just because dolphins don't have advanced technology and can't communicate in terms that we directly understand, doesn't mean that they don't wonder where they came from. Also, if there is intelligence life elsewhere in the universe, which is likely (given what we know), they would also need to form a part of this circle.

A: Lob the banana at the tin can at pretty near to the speed of light. You won't get the stuff in the can afterward but you'll open it. Q: What's the best method to use to change the world for the better? (just a simple question, right?)

A: Not really, prefer oranges myself (actually I just like orange juice, about two litres a day. We're out of it at the moment so I'll probably be dead tomorrow). Oops, two questions :S I'll seal it off with an answer to Tesseract's A: $37 trillion Q: What's your favourite element?

Thanks Unfortunately it's still going on. Look at this: http://home.earthlink.net/~ram1024/ And the resulting 9 page cataclysm on another forum (the World of Warcraft off-topic forum, as it were, one of the only other forums I look at and I don't know why...): http://www.battle.net/forums/wow/thread.aspx?FN=wow-offtopic&T=105122&P=1&ReplyCount=163#post105122

Why would Humans be the/one of the masterpieces? We're not by any means evolutionarily perfect. :/

A: Linux. But of the two I prefer Macs. I use PC's. Q: What's your favourite building?

Sorry, meant that apparently this is a good enough reason to get rid of Sayonara, based on trueLove's 24 hours of experience talking to the other... Anyway, you're right.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3964 Because Sayonara took offense at trueLove's generalised insults towards Atheists, Jews, Liberals, Islam and Judaism. Apparently this is a good enough reason to get rid of him, based on trueLove's whopping 24 hours on this forum.