J'Dona

I vote for Mars, not because I think it's more likely to harbour life than, say, Europa, but simply because it'll be a while before we send probes that can penetrate the thick crust of Europa to reach the liquid water, and we're sending quite a few more probes to Mars (I've just heard that Beagle 3 is in the works, and Beagle 2 was specifically designed to try and find traces of life), and evern the Spirit and Opportunity rovers are still operational. Perhaps they're working on a Europa probe right now that I haven't read about yet, but it would be a while before launching at any rate. I don't personally think that Titan is likely to harbour life any more complex than, say, a strand of DNA (at least not that we can detect), simply because it is so cold. I'm not saying it doesn't have life, but it just seems a little hostile, unlike the liquid water of Europa or (as it now seems) Mars. Of course, if what we think we know about Titan's surface is true then the conditions are similar to the Earth's when it was young, so I would imagine that after Huygens lands the conditions necessary for life won't seem quite so uncommon as was previously thought.

Interesting update here about Firefox and IE. With media attention, Firefox can only get more users: Firefox browser takes on Microsoft

Back from USA, California's rather large, Not like the UK Slept on floors and sheets, San Francisco airport seats, Hoarding British sweets Camps and redwood trees, Sister's wedding, no bedding? Cramps, but good times, food Next day on the go, Five days straight across three states, Highway radio Come Election Day, In the coolest place in States Death Valley, to say Las Vegas: the Strip, Hoover Dam and Grand Canyon, Feel like a tourist Soon back overseas, Just brought shirts and memories And Zim DVD's Rainy place, England, Work is boring, house is dull But they have broadband

Which is precisely why many people have been trying to change the constitution to remove that as we speak. http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles5/president_arnold.htm http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/23/MNGJ7566RN1.DTL http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/columns/kadner/x08-pkd1.htm Those are just a few links from the first page of a Google search for "change constitution arnold president", but there are lots more. Apparently there's one website campaigning for it so that Arnold in particular can run, but there have been other people from both parties calling for the change to the cinstitution since before Arnold ran for Governor.

I think he's planning on two terms (all presidential candidates seem to), since there was constroversy over Bill Clinton backing Kerry becasue, if he got in, a second term for Kerry would get in the way of his wife running for president, whereas if he was only looking for one term it would help her as the country would be effectively "primed" for another Democratic candidate. I hadn't heard that about Jeb Bush, but I still don't think he'd have a chance against Schwarzenegger in the primaries. There's just so much good will for Schwarzenegger that it's not much of a contest. There have been quite a few female world leaders, but yeah, not quite as many "major" ones if that's what you mean. There almost was with Sonia Gandhi, but she pulled out.

If Kerry wins this year and Schwarzenegger runs against him in 2008, Schwarzenegger will win, no question. If Bush wins this year and Hillary and Schwarzenegger run against each other in 2008, it would be about a tie... but probably go to Schwarzenegger. If Bush wins and for some reason Schwarzenegger doesn't run, Hillary will probably win. Of course this is mostly speculation. We leave for California in a couple hours though and I'll be there during Election Day, so I'll see if I can't pick up a few things about the politics there and make a better guess. I've heard Arnold is a talented politician, but even if he wasn't he'd still be voted in in 2008 because, well, he's the Terminator. But there are a lot of people cheering for Hillary...

Ack, my mistake. Hadn't read that part. I thought I was going to miss it as we're leaving for California tomorrow for 10 days. I assume there will be no prize for whoever makes post #100000? No point in having on, and it'll just cause spam.

I vote again for reopening the arcade! Why is everyone saying there's only a few left? The statistics screen on the SFN home page says (for me anyway) : "Posts: 97,429"

Just to warn you Cap'n, Bob probably won't be posting until there are some questions being asked in the C family section, and he'll respond then. Just so you know you won't have a member #2 with zero posts (him getting that was just fluke by the way; I saw you update this with the new link four minutes after you did, so I just contacted him then and rejoined within a minute).

CPL.Luke, I think you're thinking about Newtonian gravity there, not relativity or the properties of spacetime, which are rather a bit more clever than common sense. If something had no rest mass, it would have no mass at all at any speed, regardless of whether or not the thing in question can ever be at rest. You can't really say that "they have mass because they are always moving at c", since the two are unrelated, and also because relativity explicitly shows that if an object travelling at c had mass, then that mass would probably be infinite. If you didn't know that, you may wish to do more research before posting a response.

My first thread was here (probably post #10 or so for me) wherein I quickly set the SFN record for the longest and most baseless portion of speculative prose ever. 13 replies, about half of which were mine. You do NOT want to get into a discussion about something to do with sci-fi with me, ever.

The E in E = mc2 and the E in E = hf aren't necessarily the same thing. In E = mc2, the energy is the equivalent energy that would be produced by the mass m when you, say, completely annihilate it with antimatter. It's not saying that "anything that has energy has mass". It's saying that mass can be considered a form of energy (hence equivalence). If all energy has mass by the formula E = mc2, then it follows that the amount of mass in the universe would always be constant (since the amount of energy is always constant). In that case, why would the products of a nuclear reaction have less mass than the reactants did? The energy is the same, so why not the mass? Besides, if photons had no rest mass, how could they possibly have mass when they're moving (particularly when they always travel at c and the concept of rest mass is meaningless)? The increase of mass with speed doesn't apply to something that has zero rest mass to increase, by any factor.

I could direct my brother to your forum if you want, Cap'n Refsmmat. He's just starting his second year of a computer games programming course, but I'm not sure if that's the sort of programming you were looking for. If he joins you would recognise him because his handle would probably contain a variation of the words doom, kawphy, and/or muffin. Correction: He joined using his other most common username. Bob.

Wouldn't HK refer to Hong Kong? I think you got the answer you needed in bloodhound's post, Primarygun: BBC and just listening to people talk. Definitely Monty Python too. In fact, they should make Monty Python required viewing in English classes in China, because, uh... humour is proven to aid in the learning process?

Probably the same actors, and just have it based on one of the novels in the Star Wars universe that takes place way later (Mara Jade, Han and Leia's kids and so forth). Either that or hefty makeup and have them do the Heir to the Empire trilogy with Thrawn and them, or the Jedi Academy Trilogy. Actually, it would probably best not to take the risk of it ruining the original trilogy more than the new ones have, and not make Episodes 7+ at all.

You're right Douglas, which is why I posted this in a conspiracy theories thread rather than a proper political debate one. But still, if this guy has sent millions of emails out, and is personally communicating with more than one other person discussing his email, and it's just before the election, then it's not like your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory. I'm really just interested in the particular points that are brought up in the letter, and whether any of them have any validity. If not, then good; it makes life a lot simpler. If they are at least partially correct, then I worry, which is why I brought attention to it here. :/ I mean, he suggests the embezzlement by the government of $12.6 trillion, which is something that needs to be looked into no matter how crazy it sounds because it's that huge a figure.

Rather than make a new thread for it, I'll add this in here, as it's sort of a conspiracy theory. Take a look at this: http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=406 Then go here and look for the entry titled "The Real Karl Schwarz and an Apology" for a little confirmation on the validity of the points (fourth down on the main page). We got a copy of the chain email at our house, and though I can't say much about it without more evidence, I thought you guys might be interested.

A change in velocity like would have to take a little time. The formula is: Ft is the impulse. Since the mass starts at rest and u = 0, it's just Ft = mv. So Ft = 1 x 14 = 14 Newton seconds. There is a range of values that the force and time can take to give the same value of v; for example, a force of 14N over 1 second would give v = 14, or a force of 140N over 0.1 seconds would as well. You can find the acceleration in each case by rearraging F = ma, once you know the force.

Unfortunately, a lot of what was said was false (look above for some of Kerry's lies, and the other thread for Bush's), so a close and objective look at the issues for the truth in them needs to be taken before voting. That's what Pangloss is doing. He might decide that he doesn't want to vote for either. I'm sorry though Douglas, I really didn't mean to offend you or budullewraagh with the previous post. I just feel that Pangloss is being more scientific about his decision (i.e. passionless and objective, concerned with evidence and not subjective hypotheses), and rightly so, as it's a more representative vote and it opens the politics forum up for better discussion and debate.

I tried posting this last night but it was 2:40 AM and I couldn't make it... I was going to PM it but I think there's a point to be made here for everyone. I just wanted to say that I very much respect your posts on the forum, Pangloss. They seem to be the most centrist of any member, and you're very well informed, which makes them all the more valuable. What I mean by centrist is that you accept the shortcomings and advantages of both candidates, and are making your decision from there (as shown in particular by the two "The Lies of _____" threads). As far as the general public goes, so many people just pick sides in politics without actually understanding the issues that an informed vote such as yours would be one of the only really representative ones in the country. I don't post often in the politics forum but I read every post, and I'd rather read a discussion of yours than one of, say, Douglas's or budullewraagh's (sorry guys—I know that you know what you're talking about; you just tend to be a little bit biased). So, I'm basically saying that I admire your impartiality, Pangloss. Considering that this is scienceforums.net, I would have hoped for more objectivity from its members, even if this is politics and not science. I just wish that all undecided voters in Florida were like you, because if it decides the election again, we wouldn't need to worry about parties influencing the votes.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "accelerating to a slower speed", but the only reason light appears to travel more slowly in a medium like, for example, water or glass is because the atoms and molecules within the medium are absorbing the photons and then emitting them a moment later, which results in a time delay. The photons themselves are still travelling at light speed. The atoms gain energy when they absorb the photon and vibrate more, and then lose that same energy when the photon is emitted. I wouldn't imagine that any additional energy input was required.

There doesn't seem to be an .ico file in the main folder, so I guess you just change the icon by going into the properties of the .exe in C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox and copy/pasting the new icon picture on top.

Here you go: http://people.freenet.de/ZX7/main-window.ico

Worn off? Those GIR stand-ups are hilarious! However, Phi for All has yet to do one on himself... Here's a joke to make it look like I wasn't just posting to point that out (I think I've told you this one before on chat, 5614): What do you call someone who speaks three languages? - Trilingual What do you call someone who speaks two languages? - Bilingual What do you call someone who speaks one language? - English Or at least in most cases...

It really depends on the subject. Maths is getting easier, for example, or at least in the long term. I once saw an O-Level maths paper from fifty years ago or more, and it had questions on matrices and complex numbers. That's in second year A-Level Further Maths now.