Cap'n Refsmmat

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090903/full/news.2009.881.html They cite these papers: Morris, J. et al. Science advanced online publication doi:10.1126/science.1178868 (2009). Fennell, T. et al. Science advance online publication doi:10.1126/science.1177582 (2009). Kadowaki, H. et al. preprint at http://arXiv.org/abs/0908.3568v2 (2009). Bramwell, S. T. et al. preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956 (2009). If they're right, this is amazing. All these years of reading threads on SFN where monopoles are proclaimed to be impossible... and here they are. I'm now curious to see if someone else will overturn the claims or if their conclusions are truly correct. (Here's where I wish I could skip a few semesters ahead so I could actually know what the papers are talking about. That could be important.)

I would think Java would be easier to use for this sort of thing, unless MATLAB knows how to handle video files.

Why does everything need purpose?

All I need is a simple way to whack people over the head through the Internet. That's all.

What killed our efforts the last time we tried it is that vBulletin by default gives people tremendous amounts of reputation power very quickly. Suddenly one person could hand out 50 reputation points in one shot, where others could only hand out one or two. People were going into the red with one negative rep. We've changed the settings so this can't happen, and made sure that reputation is anonymous. But if there's evidence of it being abused, I hope you'll inform us so we can determine the best solution.

You can add or remove reputation from people by the value shown as your "rep power" under each of your posts. We're hoping that by opening it up for negative reputation we might encourage people to make better posts.

Try installing Wireshark to capture traffic leaving your computer to see just what it contains.

All that work just to post a link to a shock site. Sad. I think that's enough for this thread.

You know, it is possible to have mature conversations about this topic without discussing crap like whether you can touch your own nipples. If you want to talk about homosexuality, be mature about it. Otherwise, this discussion will be closed.

This thread seems to have become so focused on infant mortality rate studies that it has lost sight of what it is actually supposed to be arguing about. I don't mind a discussion about relative qualities of care here -- quality of care is certainly related to healthcare reform and its merits -- but must we keep arguing about one little detail when there is so much more to be discussed. This is the problem with online arguments. It's too easy to pick out pieces of someone else's post to argue with, so you end up arguing one little detail for days instead of discussing the main point. So can we get back on to some decent topic, please? ParanoiA, nice to see you back at the ScienceForums Inn, even if temporarily. Let room service know if there's anything you need.

That'll really solve their addiction problems.

They certainly spur innovations in the mortuary marketing business. "All new! Lifetime warranties on all caskets!"

Seeing as batteries are chemical, I've moved this to Chemistry for you. Perhaps one of our resident chemistry experts will know the answer.

Really? Looking at the original paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607632), the authors state that "It was evident that a deep field with the new capabilities of Hubble following the installation of the ACS could address several important issues in early galaxy formation" and discuss the forming of a committee to recommend the specific details of the Ultra Deep Field image. But I'm no astronomer... Not that this makes the image any less incredible. It certainly gives you some perspective on the universe...

And the highest quantity of money is required to buy it. That is the problem.

http://www.physorg.com/news169193691.html I think that may be relevant to the discussion at hand.

splat.

Bla

Nothing to see here, move along. < > & Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Post

Sisysphus's point is that there are many different ways to make a computer, just like there are many different forms and kinds of life. A computer can be made of gears and mechanical linkages and still compute, with no need for electricity at all. The fact is that there are numerous ways life can manifest itself. Can you present something other than atoms that might be contained in something alive? After all, we can argue about this for hours, but the fact is that nobody has ever found anything but atoms in living things. If you can prove otherwise, please do. I'm interested in hearing what things besides atoms you think it is possible to make life out of.

Well, we did broadcast television signals back from the Moon live. They could have listened for that. I don't know if the link D H gave says they did; Google translations are annoyingly difficult to read.

Diamonds are made of carbon.

Let me know if you get any more. I just edited the offending function to use built-in PHP functions instead of the weird hack Jelsoft had implemented. It should no longer give problems.

In other words, "you must have sat around cluelessly hoping to figure out what's going on until it fixed itself."