DrP

Yea - hitting water at high speed can be like hitting concrete. I think some divers break up the suface of the water with their hands ahead of them to soften the inpact from a high dive.

I would have thought it would depend upon the individual person, how they hit the water and how deep it was etc.. Otherwise - I don't actually know. However - after a certain height, you stop accelarating and reach terminal velocity. How safe it would be to ht the water at this I don't know either - but I wouldn't fancy anyones chances. There was a story about a Rusian lady who fell out of a plane without a paracute from about 30,000 feet or so. She landed on a the side of a hill that was covered in a few feet of snow. She didn't even break a bone (How true this is I do not know - story passed on by word of mouth to me years ago - probably been well exagerated by now!)

My wife and I have lived in our house for about 18 months now. We've just started to explore the surrounding country walks. Went out this afternoon and saw (NO LIE!!) a heard of elephants, a lynx, some noisey monkeys AND a rhinoceros... in fact we saw 3 rhinoceros(es? ii? s'??) Man! I was less than 3 meters away from a Rhinosauros!! Amazing! I was a bit awed out by the rhno - it can charging up like a playfull dog and stood there looking at us and eating hay on the other side of the fence! Amazing! All of this less than a mile from my house!!! WoW!

My wife tried to contact the Inland Revenue, after they wrote to her in her maiden name, so she could update her details and give them her new name. She quoted her maiden name, her new name, her address and her National Insurance Number. They wrote back saying 'Sorry, but we can not identify you from the information you have provided us'. They wrote to her first, she gives them her name address and NI number..... and yet they still can't work out who she is.

You claimed they were guilty of war crimes for using WP, were shown that it was not the case or hasn't been proven and then you still cary on with the same argument. That's when. yea... and all those alternatives were discussed and proven unsuitable for the senario by JBs post.

Quick question here: What are the units on the frequency here? Are the 0.2 and 0.4 ment to represent 0.2 and 0.4 thousand beaks or something?

I would have said that it would have been sum of the frequency values that those bars represent, rather than just the number of bars. From what I can see from the charts, you have a range of Beak depths for the 3 places. The hight of the bars will tell you how many beaks are of that depth in each place. You want to get the average beak depth - so you add together the depths of all the beaks and divide by the total number of beaks in the study. OK? Have I understood that properly? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPS - or as Mokele just said - the number x their height.

Not George Cloonies finest hour. ( - sorry - couldn't resist it)

Add together all the values and then divide by the number of values.

I was worrying about the possiblity of an attack this year in London on the 9th of September. 09/09/09 - or 999 - the british emergancy nuber. Hopefully this won't happen.

That question was on QI last night. (how far away is the horison?) no-one answered it so Stephen Fry gave them that very formula to work them out - SQURT(1.5 x height).

Post #6 at the begining of this thread talks about such issues - no-one seemed to notice it/ or they ignored it because it didn't say what they wanted to hear.

Personally I think it is about ballance. If a 6 year old eats nothing but burgers then that isn't the fault of the fast food outlet - it is poor parenting that allows said 6 year to over indulge. There is nothing wrong with the occasional fatty/salty burger with loads of ketchup on it (mmm) - unless you have it for lunch every day. Nothing wrong with salty, greesy food in moderation if it is ballanced with loads of fruit and veg on other days. I want lots of calories in my food - I need them for the energy I need to go about my day to day business - and to play sports. Without calories I cease to be able to function properly. I think we need to differentiate between eating calorie packed meals and OVER EATING calorie packed meals.

Any use of arms against anyone cold be considered a violation of human rights if you look at in that way no? If you shoot me, then that is a violation of my human rights - if a situation has developed into outright war then all sense has seeminly gone out of the window from both sides anyway. The question you origionally posted was: Which is dificault to answer directly because no one has proven that any war crimes have taken place yet. As has been ponted out above - the shells they were using are not banned under any law or treaty (according to JohnB's post above - I personally don't know enough about it - nor do AI or most people on the street apparently). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh yea - How can you tell from a picture of a war scene what the hell is going on anyway. You picture shows some shells going off during a war. You can't tell what is going on and WHY in particular from that. Perhaps the troops were going to advance behind that smoke. Perhaps the smoke was a decoy and the troops were about to assault elsewhere. Perhaps that were about to assault but then got the intel that they were mistaken and there was no point in advancing on that area because it was acually a UN building and they had made a mistake about it being full of Hamas forces. What the hell do any of us know about it?

Well - is there any information on what the chemicals in the grain that get force fed to them actually are once they have been digested and reach the liver? Why not inject a healthy liver with this and let it do its work over a couple of days. Why not do an experiment with some heathly livers (removed of course!): Inject one with alcohol. Another with a mild edible acid. Find out what chems end up in the liver after being force fed grain and use these. Iradiate one. Let one stand for a couple of days. Plus anything else you can think of. - Then test the pate you get from all of these tests and see if any resemble Foie Gras. You might end up getting something different altogether wheich could be used as an ethical alternative - and if your really lucky it may actually taste better.

If you look at our model for the atom over the years it has changed/evolved as we have better and better understanding of it. Starting with J.J. Thompson and his 'plumb pudding' Theory of positive specks in a negative sea of particles, through Bohr and the atomic orbital models and on to more modern electron density models etc.. each is an addition/improvement on the last and deals with errors and or gaps in the theory. Does this mean J.J. Thompson was an idiot or a fraudster because he got his model wrong? No - of course not. it best explained the atom according to what we knew at the time and was in fact a brilliant insight into the structure of matter and atoms. It can be argued that he was wrong, but it can also be argued that he was on the right track and his speculations and models lead to the advancement in our understanding of the stucture of the atom which others then continued to improve develop over the next few hundered years. Therefore, to take a scientific theory and say that it is wrong because scientists keep having to update it shows a lack of understanding of how our knowledge base works and how theories are developed and matured over time. Anyway - they are ALL wrong - you are just a figment of MY imagination anyway - so there!.

It's a good idea though if you could find something to make it happen (maybe somekind of biological attack). I can see the interest. Like artificially growing truffels.

I've seen the video of it thrown into the air. I've definately seen it poured straight from the kettle as well - it freezes as soon as it hits the ground. Can't remember the video - was some documentry I saw a good few years ago.

Yea I know. Return of the Living Dead is very funny. "Mooore Braaaains!!!" (Zombie split dogs! - fantastic!) Night of... was good for it's time (but a bit before mine) Dawn of.. was my favourite, because it deals with what is being discussed in this thread - setting up and surviving after the zombies have taken over. All 3 are classics though! I stand by my comment. If you have been interested in this thread and haven't seen it - watch "Zombies: Dawn of the Dead" the second of the series.

dude - is that cold enough to pour boiling water from a kettle and have it freeze before it hits the ground? I know that happens at -40C, but I not sure if it will at -27C.

But seriously! You all should watch "Zombies: Dawn of the Dead" It's a bit dated now (1978 ish?) but probably the best Zombie film ever made. I've seen it about 27 times and I don't even like Zombies! "Saun of the Dead" wasn't bad either, but my missus won't watch it with me.

There is only one sun and one moon (that belong to us any way). There are lots of planets. Mercury is the closest planet to the sun. Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. Venus is the next planet closest to the sun. Mercury is a planet (see??? not THE planet but a planet) It's called the definate article (the). Hopefully this will help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar) That link gives the example of cats and mats. If you are talking about a specific cat on a specific mat then it is: the cat sat on the mat if it was any old cat on any old mat then it is: acat sat on a mat. Hope that helps.

Not speaking from experience - rather from what I've heard. I thought that if you already speak more than one western language, then learning another isn't too dificault. Likewise, if you speak an Asian language then picking up another isn't supposed to be too hard. It gets difficault, apparently, for a westerner to learn chinease or japanease and vica versa. Can anyone support this?

OK - thanks - knew it was something along those lines. Thus, why I worded it without much confidence as a question rather than a statement of fact. I hope it came accross like that.