John Cuthber

I think that sort of comment is best dealt with by referring it to what (round here) would be the enforcing authority. They have a list of bulldust; here's the relevant one. http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/myth-busting/2013/case140-risk-assessment.htm

In the UK those "excuses" wouldn't stop you getting prosecuted if you relied on PPE rather than LEV. As studiot said at the outset, if you can't do it safely, you shouldn't do it at all.

Is there some confusion here between sine and sign? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_function

Yeah, everyone who works with gold is a millionaire. http://www.okinternational.org/mining Apart from the fact that the profit margin on a lot of gold extraction is minimal. This might be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubber Studiot's right about getting proper help designing it.

OK, in particular, they say "Using NASA’s Worldview interactive satellite viewer we’ll take a look at electromagnetic propagation originating from the island beginning Sept 11 and ending Sept 16th.The cone of EM force begins ... " which simply doesn't make sense.

The Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor typically runs at something like 10 to 100 KV. That energy corresponds to a temperature of something like 100 million degrees (Or there abouts- I lost track of the zeros). Why are you calling something like that "cold fusion"?"

"Is energy kinetic motion? Is that not most prevailing in the nucleus (compared to electrons and other space in the atom)?" No http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem "If energy was equal throughout, would it not imply motion of particles equal throughout?" No. it would imply that the lightweight things like electrons move faster than the heavier thinks (like protons). And that's what is actually observed. Don't you think you should spend a little more time finding out how well the usual models aork, before trying to come up with a better one? After all, if you don't know what you are trying to mimic, you are almost bound to get it wrong 9as you have so far). Once again, Do you have a nice clear summary of (1) how your idea gives a better explanation than the standard one used in textbooks (you might want to start by showing where that theory gives the wrong answers) and (2) how you mathematically derived your ideas from some set of testable postulates.

You start by saying "Thermal Expansion due to energy in the nucleus:" Can you explain why the measured values for thermal expansion are exactly what you calculate from measurements of the energy/ distance curves for the electron? you also say "Energy/friction of nucleus causes heat/repulsive/expansive force that pushes against electrons (or otherwise smallest stable particle in the atom" Well, there are a couple of problems there. friction is a dissipative process- where does the energy go and, perhaps more importantly, where does the energy come from to ensure that they atoms don't "run out"? Also, many of the electrons in an atom have an essentially zero probability of being at the nucleus. How does it affect them? As far as I can see the easiest s explanation of the issues with your idea is that it's just some stuff you made up. Do you have a nice clear summary of (1) how your idea gives a better explanation than the standard one used in textbooks (you might want to start by showing where that theory gives the wrong answers) and (2) how you mathematically derived your ideas from some set of testable postulates.

The video is on a site about "chemtrails" so it's almost certainly rubbish.

Meanwhile, back at the topic...

The argument put forward is both unspeakable and indescribable. On a related note English just won the Eurovision song contest again- that's every year bar one since some time in the late 90s I think.

Because it said things like "The sea might be boiling hot, simply because you left out which sea you were talking about. The primordial sea of planet earth was boiling hot, or a sea on another planet might be also?" In which you fail to notice the difference between "the sea" which I said and "a sea" which I didn't. Similarly "the sea is boiling hot" rather than "the sea was boiling hot." Essentially, it seemed a bit pointless to reply.

OK, let's join Alan in his pursuit of pedantry, and ask if there are any viable working hypotheses concerning karma and reincarnation?

But there don't seem to be any facts. Some opinions and hearsay- but that's it. Of course, in accordance with the principle of charity, both sides are right- always- so the weather looks as good a topic as any.

If you are looking for a source of phosphate you may not need to buy it, At least for adults (who are not producing new bones) most of the phosphate in your diet ends up in the urine.

I suspect that the IR produced by a YAG laser doesn't get through the cornea and lens so it won't damage the retina easily. After all, if they are trying to burn bits off the cornea, they will choose a wavelength that is absorbed by it. Near IR will get through to the retina butt may not be focussed well so it may be less harmful. The sensible advice is to wear suitable eye protection when using lasers.

I seem to have missed something here. Are we going to have a succession of threads titled "Why I reject unicorns and lepricorns, as illogical and nonsensical" "Why I reject the idea that 2+2 = 6 and and all brown things are green, as illogical and nonsensical" and "Why I reject the idea that the sea is boiling hot and and think that debate concerning whether pigs have wings as illogical and nonsensical"? On a scientific site, what does this thread bring to the party?

The lens of the eye will focus both beams to prety much the same size spot so it won't matter much (assuming that it's visible light).

Since the fans actually heat the air, and you don't want to blow that hot air at yourself, it's better to have them blow out. Since the chimney effect will tend to make the air rise it's probably bets to have the fans work with it rather than against it and have them blow the air up. Also, for best results, don't wear a jacket.

The problem there is that 2^31 isn't very many combinations to try. Also AES CTR isn't just XOR. If you use a "proper" key then you are not using the time as that key.

There is, in principle, a difference between pseudo-, and real- random number generation. If the sequence is truly random (and only known to the two participants) then you can use OTP and get provable security. If you use a PRNG then, because the repeat length is finite, you can, in principle, hack it- as long as the message is long enough. So, from a theoretical stand point, PRNG is "broken". In practical terms the brokenness is too small to worry about unless you are sending huge amounts of data (or, equivalently, using too short a sequence). Stealing the seed (and knowing the algorithm) isn't quite the same as stealing the key. The key- the pseudorandom sequence- has to be at least as long as the message (since we are talking about XOR as an encoding method). The seed might be 22:01:05 And, if you know roughly what time I sent this message then guessing it isn't that difficult. But I'm sure we would all like to see this magic trick that resets the clock on my PC without asking me.

to be fair, this bit is true or reasonable hyperbole "Any encryption software that takes the clock to start a pseudo-random sequence is at obvious risk of running always the same sequence. This is basics about cryptography. Not using pseudo-random sequences as one-time pads, too. Doing both results in the crypto code having zero strength." The strength isn't zero- that's sending plain text- but it's poor practice. I'm unconvinced that the issue is the use of the clock to seed the RNG. The problem is using a pseudo-random sequence in the first place. If there is a seed and an algorithm for generating the numbers then Eve can steal it or guess it. However, I'm waiting (with rapidly diminishing patience) for an example of a website that can mess up the clock on my PC without asking me. (And I am running this machine as an admin)

Plenty of nations within Schengen have islands as part of their territory, and the agreement applies to those islands.

I think I can add another couple of correct statements; Re Mr Bernoulli doesn't think so: and no it doesn't.

You need a pretty good thermometer to make the sort of measurements that are used in climate science. it has to be accurate and to stay that way (or be recalibrated) for years or decades. Not many people would want to take the trouble to do that. Also, imagine that your grandfather left you a hundred year old thermometer in his will, would you still be using it, or would you have found a better way of measuring temperature? How good will a Pi look in ten years, never mind a hundred. On the other hand, it would be an interesting project and it would get people talking about actually measuring things- that might be very useful.