Sayonara

I didn't actually specify "practicing" scientists; that is some extra and purposefully specific qualifier that someone else has added along the way. Exactly. Moreover, why bring them into a thread/debate about abstract thought in animals in the first place? Hear hear. I think you mean you have spent the greater part of your time here introducing your status and position in life into discussions where they are utterly irrelevant. Since you apparently don't want to continue or conclude the debate, this thread is locked until and unless Lucas asks for it to be reopened.

Which takes us nicely on to.... At which point people started taking the claims seriously. There isn't any special trick to this progression, and odious arguments from authority do not magically change the rules. I couldn't care less whether or not you think that "all competent research scientists" should be able to see or recognise clues. What I care about is that you state your case plainly in this thread - and indeed any other on these forums - so that our members can engage in honest and clear discussion without feeling that they are being spoken down to, led up the garden path, or just generally having their time wasted by someone who refuses to grasp the simple principle that data must support ideas before those ideas will gain widespread credibility. You are beginning to test my patience now. Whatever problem you have with the scientific process is exactly that - your problem. If you really believe that it is a flawed system, then this is probably not the appropriate venue for you to try and get your ideas accepted, what with it being a science forum. You now have a choice before you - there are three options: 1) Stop posting in this thread, 2) Respond to the OP and deal with the issues, without waffling on about "adherence to the rules", 3) Continue with the off-topic debate, receive a spamming infraction, and possibly lose access to the biology forums altogether. I am quite sure that you will have a thing or two to say about this (probably several paragraphs, with bits bolded or written in red). It might be an idea to go away from the keyboard for a while first and consider whether or not you really want to continue the discussion and, if so, what the priorities are.

Pangloss, I am making no statements about the veracity of Suzuki's claims. I am simply trying to establish what it is you want to discuss with everyone in this thread.

I heard they were frozen penguins fired from orbit.

If I were "choosing to ignore" elements of the OP I would not be providing you with so many opportunities to ignore questions. I asked you if your question was one of him being right because he says, in his words, that he wants to lock them up "because what they're doing is a criminal act". If we disagree that they are committing a criminal act then we can agree that he is a nitwit, job done. I can assure you Pangloss that I have no interest in favouring either side of the US political system. They are both equally amusing to me as a UK citizen. Then what is this thread for?

Perhaps the lack of searching ability is some sort of defence mechanism. My first post began with the historic line "That would be a long way to go to fill your balloons."

So, again: Is your question here one of whether or not he is right about them committing a criminal act? If not then what are we supposed to be doing in this thread? Bitching about Suzuki's opinion?

No, I would not. You lock up people who disobey the law - it's for the courts to decide if those laws were broken, and ultimately if those laws are the right way to go about things.

Pangloss: Is your question here one of whether or not he is right about them committing a criminal act? I presume from what he said that the only politicians he is interested in locking up are the criminal ones, and I really can't say I object to locking up criminals.

Do you actually believe those people just spewed out ideas and everyone else generally agreed they were probably right, without any convincing reason? They all formulated hypotheses which made predictions, and those could be - and WERE - tested by observation. The data back up the claims. Don't leave "clues" - say what you mean and mean what you say. Trying to talk around your point without actually saying it will simply frustrate the discussion and may well lead people to believe that you are being intellectually dishonest. I strongly recommend that you have a think about how much ideas alone are really contributing to science before you reply again.

Something tells me HD at 1200fps is going to be a leeeetle bit more expensive

It's only a 6 megapixel camera, so they may have sacrificed the more expensive components in order to get the ultracoolness of 60fps still and 1200fps video inside it. Still, if it shoots in HD, 6mp must be enough...? I would definitely buy this for $999. Only thing is, when it finally comes out over here, it won't be the equivalent price... it'll be £800 or some crazy amount. We always get stiffed

The brief Clay gave doesn't mention NASA - it's for a work of fiction which for all we know might not even feature Earth, never mind contemporary organisations. Assume for the sake of argument that this particular astronaut on his long voyage does smoke, whether or not the regs say he can.

Check out this beast: http://exilim.casio.com/browse_cameras/exilim_pro/EX-F1/ 60 frames per second still images, 1200fps video, 12x optical zoom, 36 to 432mm equivalent, and it shoots true HD. Droool.

If you are a home user, there is no need to pay for an anti-virus; there are plenty of industry leaders who offer a free single user license. The only people who should need to be paying for licenses these days are business and other groups. This is a matter of user ignorance, and not one of the technology itself. Router manufacturers are getting better at educating their customers if my experiences are anything to go by (anecdotal I know, but the difference between now and 5 years ago really is that noticeable). Not that I know of. That is not really what is under discussion here - the OP is asking about anti-virus protection on routers as a first line of defence for the computers connected to it.

Excellent article Bascule, thanks for the linkage.

I have to say I agree. Moreover, I suspect that the door swings both ways.

At the moment I have access to my housemate's PS3, so I don't need a Blu-Ray player. I will probably buy an HD drive for my Xbox 360. What swung it was I just found out that Battlestar Galactica is coming out on HD

Which one will you choose? Have you picked a side yet? Maybe you have players for both? There is some discussion at the moment about the various advantages of each format... slightly better quality on Blu-Ray, conventional DVD format on the flipside of some HD DVD movies, and so on. Let's hear your views

But the question with animals is: Could this be the same phenomenon that we term "personality" in humans, or is it simply a unique set of particular learned responses which is unique to that specific animal due to the environment we give it (sort of a behavioural signature, if you will)?

Considering yourself to be an "outside the box" thinker is not a means of bypassing conventions when you are debating matters of scientific enquiry with scientists. If half of what you have told us about your past is true (and I don't have any reason to think that it isn't) then I'd have thought you would understand that. By all means Sam, be as radical as you see fit - in that direction lies innovation as you clearly know. Just don't be surprised that people here are unlikely to take a given idea on faith alone, because most of us are primed to ask "...what is the evidence?" when we meet a novel explanation. Personally I quite like weird ideas, as many here do, but it does of course help to present them on a science site in a scientific manner. Horses for courses, as they say. I would respectfully suggest that comparing yourself to Stephen Hawking is perhaps not realistic. You may perceive that, like you, he "just sits around and thinks about things", but the fact of the matter is that he backs up his insights with spectacular feats of mathematics, and presents his evidence according to sound scientific practices.

This thread is not interesting or informative enough to stay off topic for long without being locked.

Why not acknowledge it? Firstly, it is one of the most cited instances of this sort of thing on the web, and our mentions of it are hardly going to make any difference. Secondly, we are giving people the opportunity to read or take part in discussions which appraise the claims in a scientific fashion (in the other thread where we discussed Titor, if not this one). Thirdly, starting with a pre-judgement and refusing discussion of a selected topic is hardly a scientific approach. IOW, suspecting a hoax does not mean that we cannot or should not objectively and impartially analyse the evidence. I think it is very clear in this thread, in case you are truly worried, that Titor's claims are not widely supported here.

How exactly is critiquing the veracity of an account of time travel not in the remit of a science discussion forum? If you don't want to see it, don't look at the thread!

Our staff are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not action is out of hand - that is why they are appointed. It seems to me that half of your problem in getting help was due to the way in which you phrased your questions. If you can get that sorted out, I am sure you will receive more useful replies.