Dave

That should be fixed now. I've enabled animated gifs for avatars.

I'll look into it.

Anyone mind if I put the two logos up on a randomizer?

I've never even heard of them

If people would be interested in setting up a news group, then I can create a usergroup for those budding journalists to post current news, and maybe display it a bit more prominently on the front page. I think they'd need to be a bit more professional than we had at the moment, but if the interest was there then that would be cool. Obviously the usergroup would bypass moderation

It's really more of the same from there onwards. Things like Analysis I found rather testing, but the important thing is that it does help you change the way you think about maths problems. In my opinion, by far the most important thing besides a reasonable amount of ability is a passion for the subject. You have to find the subject interesting in order to do well in it.

I took A-level Maths and Further Maths and got AA after exams. I chose to study Maths at Warwick University, and I can say that it is a real challenge. You'll find that Maths at university is a lot different to A-level. I strongly advise that you go to some open days, and maybe pick up some introductory material. Do the AEA practice papers (or STEP if you really feel like punishing yourself ) and see how it goes. Hope this helps a bit. Just let me know if you need some more advice.

Moved to Speculations.

I'm not saying that the entirety of QM overlaps with everything in Classical Physics (which isn't only Newtonian physics). I'm saying that in order to discuss the basic notions of QM, you have to consider what the problems are with classical physics, and to that extent there is a certain amount of overlap. If you've done the A-level physics course, then you'll know what I'm talking about. If the general consensus is that the community doesn't want the names changed, then that's fine and we won't change them. But frankly, I've found that some of the posts in Physics have been anything but - hence the Speculations forum. My own thoughts were that it frankly needs a breath of fresh air in order to attract more people and improve the general quality of posts. As I said, if the community doesn't like it then we certainly won't do it.

Indeed. Hence I just did easy snowfalling stuff

That's funny, it seems to remember threads for me? Oh well. Glad you all like them

Back to Firefox 1.5 - I'm having no problems, and have even been using it since Deer Park; even back then it was surprisingly stable. The only minor niggle I've found is that once in a few hundred times, when right-clicking repeatedly on a page (I do it while I'm browsing ), the contextual menu will sometimes jump for no apparent reason. But that is quite blatently a very minor issue.

Trouble is that it makes it very difficult to actually animate that on a continuous loop. Plus, my animation sk1llz aren't really that amazing

Here's my contribution. It's animated, so it's pretty monstrously large for an image. But it looks fairly cool, so meh

At the moment I'm not keen on "Modern/Theoretical Physics" - that's far too much of an all-encompassing beast of a topic, and is far too general. "Quantum Basics" is just that - the basics of quantum physics. Personally I wouldn't count superconductors as basic at all There is, to a large degree, an overlap from classical physics into QM when it comes to even the most basic questions about the nucleus. The Atomic Physics section is (unless I've got this horribly wrong) to all extents and purposes a QM section. However, I think the Nuclei and Particle Physics forum is perhaps a little confusing. More clarification may be required in the forum descriptions.

I suggest you pick up a coin, toss it, record the result and carry on for about 3 hours. After that, work out the percentages of heads and tails, then check to see whether they give a 50/50 average - or close to, at least. The point is that you could never experimentally "prove" anything in probability, but at least if you perform an experiment a large number of times then you can verify that the functions you come up with are at least close to being right. You certainly do not need "another definition of probability", whatever that might mean.

That won't be a problem. You've just got normal SDRAM, so you don't have to contend with the different clock speeds and dual-channel configurations that you can get with DDR.

Well, if it's a typical webcast (i.e. streaming mp3) then you can use something like Streamripper to rip the stream to mp3.

Did anyone have any further comments on this?

Ah, very good. I've seen a similar (if not the same) one before, but it made me chuckle

Yes; I agree that it's a bit all-encompassing. I'd be inclined to just keep it as "Classical Physics" but it leaves rather a large gap for Quantum Mechanics, unless this fell under the statute of Atomic Physics. As for Modern/Theoretical, I believe that this was intended as almost a QM forum, but I'm not entirely sure. I think blike might be in a better position to answer

I like it, Dak Also, that's not really the kind of "Christmas cheer" we're on about, silkworm

Some new forums for all you chemistry geezers to enjoy Feedback etc appreciated as always.

Yes, it's a problem with mod_security on apache. I'll try and sort it out as soon as I get back home.

I have no access to Photoshop until tomorrow, but I'll try and come up with something Edit: I've got a few spare hours, so I'm downloading the Photoshop demo.