Sayonara

I had one in my bookmarks but it seems to be gone I'm sure google will know of several.

Read the fernickety* words. I just made it up but I promise to use it every day until it is completely ubiquitous and legions of 12-yr olds sit on IRC all day pretending they started using it first. * not necessarily 'fernickety'

Don't use that site - it's pretty inaccurate* for the UK. Try a speed tester that's based over here. * as in +/- up to 80%

Do you want me to teach you to read as well? RTFW Tesseract.

I don't think me describing Office Professional would be very on topic. http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/tour/default.mspx

Yeah, that's right. Most users were more concerned about Service Pack 2 for XP (some of the SPs for Windows 2000 killed unlicensed installations), but it will be safe to use with any installation. Microsoft don't really care about licensing for Windows - it's Office Professional they pull the guns out to protect.

...whenever you like? http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com If you have not done so already, install the "critical upates notification" client. It will tell you whenever there's a vital security patch release.

Pages that are IE only aren't worth going to. Unless it's Windows Update, in which case you just use IE. ps - It's "Invader Zim".

Errr... I'm not sure Blike meant the demise of Einstein himself. I'd always assumed he meant Relativity being falsified.

Rad E's post was a reply to the O/P, so I'm guessing he means the poll option "Einstein's Demise".

Ever hear of the single or double slit experiments? Cardboard, scissors and a torch.

Oh dear. Maybe you could do the bare minimum of research into experiments involving photons, and then it wouldn't be so confusing.

Or perhaps the more likely explanation, that he means to say "temporarily contained" rather than captured, would do fine. Although I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and it is perfectly possible to capture a photon.

Most thread starters in pseudoscience... There used to be a 'hall of shame' but it vanished during the upgrade.

Seeing as the physicists in the thread haven't decided what the question means yet, that would be grossly premature. Reply not required.

If EMR is a distortion in space, photons fired at each other ought to undergo some kind of deflection. Iirc this has been tested but I can't for the life of me remember the details.

I don't necessarily consider him a combatant, and combatant does not necessarily mean the same as "civilian killer", nor does it infer "valid target". He was a combatant as far as the extreme Iraqi insurgents were concerned, the people who executed him and therefore whose opinions are pertinent to the debate. Do you see the difference? All very well, but the quote you were replying to didn't come from me. It came from Phi_For_All. Use the quote function, it's a lot less confusing. BTW, if America did decide to make war on the civilians of a sovereign nation something tells me the USA would lose a lot more lives. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that I was not making a proposal, but clarifying someone else's, and instead focus on the fact that I said "defend", and it is you who has brought "take up arms" into the mix. Can anyone say strawman? To defend one's self, property etc can mean anything from refusing to give water or shelter for occupying troops, to parking vehicles in places that make things inconvenient for convoys. You think coalition troops are going to get the message and use a policy of non-interference with regard to civilians? No, of course they are not. But they should - we are not so under-equipped that we need to negatively impact civilians wherever we find them. Again, strawman. That wasn't what I was suggesting. And I don't know what planet you are living on but the reason for the coalition forces to remain and help stabilise the area is so that the new government can establish itself to return democracy to the Iraqis, so what you mean by "not yet" I can only guess at. The time it took you to throw that reply together does not suggest to me that you took the time to read and digest the whole thread. I think you're doing the "anti-anti-American knee jerk" thing, which isn't any help to anyone, especially if you aren't actually talking to someone with an anti-American attitude. Let me make it easier for you. This summarises my standpoint: 1) Nick Berg's execution was an abhorrent act, 2) Nick Berg's execution should not be passed off as a random act of terror committed by crazies for no reason - that is propaganda, 3) Nick Berg was not killed "because he was American and Jewish" - that is propaganda. Those are reasons why he was selected to be killed, not why he was killed, 4) Nick Berg's execution was a consequence of prior military and economic actions that were not altogether necessary, and negatively impacted Iraqi civilians. This is in no way intended to justify the act; it merely explains why it happened, 5) The UK and USA troops' continued deployment in Iraq puts our forces at increased risk of harm, and can not be helping the stabilisation of the area given recent events, 6) There is no good reason why Italian, French, Australian, Spanish troops etc cannot take over the stabilisation role.

See Glider, the critical mistake you made there was just saying "this belief", and not indicating which belief. £1 says the next poster assumes you are backing them up

No. Stop making rash avatarial replies for the sake of it and try to understand what I said. What? Have you read the whole thread, or only replies to your posts? If the latter I'm not going to repeat myself just for your benefit. Because you keep getting shot at and blown up in revenge attacks ? Seems to me most US troops would prefer that didn't happen. There's a persistent attitude among Americans on the web that European forces are small, provincial and undisciplined and "can't handle" real combat themselves, which might be why the proposed solutions further up the thread slipped by. Now you are just showing that you clearly haven't read the thread. I'm not going to invest time in explaining simple things to you if you're going to put words in my mouth and not even bother to read my posts. Also there is no space to the left of question marks.

It has to do with the density of the water/ice, not their temperatures (in reply to #2-#6). Like Sky said, ice has a less efficient bonding structure than water, which is why the same mass of water is smaller in a liquid state than it is in a solid state. Increased volume with fixed mass = lower density. Lower density water floats on higher density water.

The "home" key is the easiest way to get to the top of the page.

In most cases if they get subpoenaed, that's not good enough.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/25/1318257&mode=nested&tid=141&tid=188 Read me

Hello.