Sayonara

The conservation argument does not hold. You get around it via an unbelievably simple excision method, as I have already said in two threads.

I can see Blike's head.

It helps to find out what you're doing to yourself, instead of just doing random exercises and eating STUFF without any planning.

If any of you want this thread to continue, I suggest separating "abuse" and "discipline".

Min-shara is what the M stands for in "M-class planet". It means habitable, or something.

We don't really have a problem with links to science sites - our main competitors are known to all anyway. It's the adverts for sites selling knocked-off pharmaceuticals and pictures of boobies we can do without.

Perhaps it isn't computer science.

I meant everyone involved really, not just you.

That's not how it works.

Or not.

Unless you're New Zealand, in which case you seem to get pretty close (even the opposition only complain about things as a political formality - really they're quite chuffed to be there.)

That's enough mob mentality for this science forum, thanks.

Good luck flushing waste when you're cold then. Bye-bye kidneys, it was nice knowing you.

I have never had my IQ measured (properly). I honestly don't care enough to make the time.

I tend to agree. The title of the thread lacks perspective.

It was a "pah, Vulcans" joke n/m

Just to clarify for anyone who can help, do you mean in terms of ratio of visible light and waste heat produced, or something else?

Me too - how did I miss this one? Glad to hear it all turned out okay Sandi.

Conversely, if more of us Euros and Canucks did realise that, would it change anything?

Very informative, but the entire "origins of humanity" discussion is off-topic.

I would go one further, and suggest that civilisation depends not on intelligence, but on knowledge, which is most certainly not genetically inherited.

It looks to me as if you have simply substituted the term "consiousness" with the term "subjective experience" (i.e. part of its meaning), which doesn't really explain anything.

Then you had better provide some for (1), since your entire argument hinges on it.

You don't think a thermonuclear mine might have a slightly negative effect on wildlife?

Well, quite. That's why I find them ghastly - it's the audience their very existence identifies as well as what they show.