CaptainPanic

! Moderator Note I notice that the tone of this debate is getting a bit harder. Let's not go there. Before posting, ask yourself: Am I dealing with a misunderstanding, or am I dealing with someone who fundamentally opposes my worldview? From experience, I suggest that there is a large chance we're just dealing with a misunderstanding, or another form of friendly disagremeent. Please adjust the tone of your post here accordingly. A friendly post is more likely to clear up a misunderstanding than a harsh battle. In addition, it generally helps to focus on the big picture, and to just ignore individual little phrases that you disagree with. Make sure that your post is interesting to more than just 2 people (you and the person you're quoting).

Dark clothes absorb most, reflect little light Light clothes absorb little, reflect most light If your light clothes were made of aluminium foil, it would reflect everything away from you. But they are not. They are made from thin threads of cotton (or something else - but it's almost always woven). Light may reflect away, but some light gets through, and that's how light clothes protect less against UV. Because some UV light bounces off the threads until it ultimately is absorbed by your skin.

The rules here are not much different than in the family I grew up in. If I shouted, my parents would tell me to shut up. They wouldn't care if I was right or wrong. First I had to behave, and only then they'd listen to the contents. It's no different here. You have freedom of speech as long as you behave and don't piss off anyone (especially the mods and admins).

I have no objections to this 'artificial' meat, as long as the taste is similar to the meat I eat now. I can see great benefits from an energy-efficiency point-of-view, and as said before it may also reduce the ethical issues with killing animals (and the poor conditions in which they are kept). However, I have two concerns, mostly practical: 1. I wonder how high the investment is to build such a meat-factory. While the energy-efficiency may be lower because you need less energy-input (in terms of water and cattle feed) than for growing a pig or a cow, the investment is possibly going to be higher than the investment for a field of grass with a fence around it. So, the business case must pay back that higher investment by its lower operating costs (lower energy use). I am not yet convinced that this will be an interesting investment. But perhaps the lower land usage for growing less cattle feed counters this argument, and lowers the investment costs for the meat production. 2. Bones are good for soup, and spare ribs are awesome. Skin is good for certain dishes, as well as for leather. Liver is really nice in certain dishes as well as in a sausage for on bread and toast (foie gras). Some people enjoy offals in general (haggis). Of course, we shouldn't forget blood sausages, tongue sausage, the ox tail stew, the pig feet and chicken feet. Ok, you probably get the point. We can replace meat (the muscles), but we still want all that other food from animals as well. If we want to avoid having to grow animals for food, we must replace the whole thing, not just a part of it. So, who's gonna grow me some artificial bacon?

You keep getting moderator notes because you keep breaking the rules. Did you bother reading them, because this question is (imho) answered in the rules? Please just read the rules. I suggest you start at the top, and don't stop until you have reached the end. In this case, your question seems about section 3 of our rules. A suspension is temporary, and you will be allowed back onto the forum. A ban is permanent, and we will not tolerate a banned member back onto the forum. You are also not allowed to make a new account. [edit] Contrary to many polls on our forum where members are asked for an opinion, this one has only one correct answer: Yes.

Why did the Russians choose Sochi as the location for the Winter Olympics? Judging by two main criteria, their choice is rather poor: Climate Russia is known for its harsh winters. They have never hosted a winter olympics ever, so you'd assume they have all of Russia to choose from. And yet they choose a sub-tropical humid location, which has a warmer climate than any previous winter olympics, ever. It is also one of the most southern locations in all of Russia. Political Sochi's Olympic park is located merely 4-5 km from the border with Georgia (Google maps), with whom the Russians have fought a short war as recently as 2008. It is also located merely a couple hundred kilometers from another separatist/rebel/fundamentalist-islam area (Chechnya) where groups seem to seek independence from Russia for several reasons. In fact, the whole Caucasus is a hotbed for struggles. So, is this just a trick to extend Russian influence into the Caucasus? Or is there another reason? Any thoughts?

Let me start: "Yes" and "No". Let me first clearly state that below I give you my opinion, which I build on top of a selection of historical facts (but since I am not a historian, I am sure that my knowledge of history has some gaps, and therefore my opinion may change as I learn more!) Yes At this moment, it seems the world has one giant alliance (NATO), and an even larger number of western countries who are economically linked very closely. No other alliance comes close in size, and therefore nobody is so stupid as to attack the west (that bit of terrorism is seriously negligible). So, if the alliance is big enough to discourage all potential enemies, it can work. No However, for example right before WWI, countries formed large alliances. They may have thought that this increased their security. But all that happened was that they increased the scale of the war that followed when a conflict arose. So, did I just do your homework?

! Moderator Note If the thread has now come to a point where even modnotes are being argued, then it is time that it is closed for review and for cooling down. Thread closed for review and cooldown. (We'll post a lengthier modnote when this has been reviewed by more moderators).

That is exactly what you should say. You want payment. You want a contract in which that is agreed on. That is the core of your problem. Stick to it. If they don't understand, or dodge the issue, get out. I'll leave it to you how you dress this up into a polite conversation. I focussed only on the core-message. It's actually very simple.

! Moderator Note Please phrase your question in normal English. Read our rules and etiquette guide for hints about how to behave here. Thread closed.

Ah, thanks for the clarification! I feel better by trying to solve any problems I have. Depending whether the situation needs action from my side, I prefer to write down an action plan. But I never send this to anyone. It does not matter whether I am sad or angry, the tone of such a plan is always rather harsh, and I would only make my own situation worse if I'd show that to anyone. Better sleep on it for a night, and if it is still necessary, rewrite it. If it is an emotional problem, or an issue with a relation with someone else, I want to discuss it with my girlfriend. And then after that, I want to have a beer and talk about something completely different (preferably in the pub where I can meet (new) people).

You have a couple of very large blood vessels. You have far more smaller ones, like the ones visible in your hand. However, you have even more really tiny blood vessels, called 'capilaries'. And you really have a lot of those. Here's a wikipedia picture of how the system is built. But let's start with the comment about the lungs. Your lungs are typically about 5 liters in volume. If that was a single bag of air, its surface area would only be about 0.14 m2 (I made a quick calculation assuming it would be a sphere). Now imagine that instead they were 10 bags of each 0.5 liters. Individually those would all have a surface area of 0.03 m2, but in total it would be 0.30 m2, which is a little more than double the surface area, but still the same total volume. In reality, you have (according to wikipedia) 700 million little bags. If those were spheres, I calculate their total surface area would be 125 m2. Wikipedia puts it at 70 m2 (in the previous link). That's not exactly a football field... but it is still quite huge. Now imagine a surface of 70 m2, covered in tiny little blood vessels. Going up and down (and also from right to left), one vessel every fraction of a millimeter. I hope you can see we are rapidly reaching a very large number? And then you should realize that your whole body is filled with such little blood vessels. Your muscles have them. Your internal organs have them. Your brain has them. Etc, etc.

I prefer to listen to the blues. Can anyone enlighten me what the OP meant? When I searched for "Dealing with the blues" in a popular search engine, I found hits on the 'winter blues', the 'holiday blues', the 'Monday blues', the 'back-to-school-blues' and the 'baby blues'... and that's just within the first 10 hits.

! Moderator Note studiot, already in your 1st post in this thread, your tone was aggressive. You could have made a friendly suggestion. Instead you chose to write down a (veiled) accusation that the OP has not spent sufficient time thinking things over. There are more examples where you chose to come across unnecessarily aggressive. Stop that now. FYI, there is no rule against placing a thread in the wrong forum. If you think it is placed in the wrong spot, just report it and we'll move it. There is also no rule that says you can't be wrong. So, if you disagree with someone, please be polite and explain. Craer, instead threatening to report something, just report it straightaway. Reporting is not visible to any other members, and will therefore not add any extra fuel to an already burning fire. A post such as your last one is aimed only at the person you're having a fight with, and is totally irrelevant to any other person. If you ever notice again that your post is not relevant to a third person who isn't involved in your disagreement, do not post it. You can find our rules here. Do not respond do this mod note. If you have any problems with it, report it and the (other) moderator(s) will have a look at it.

It is not like a disease that you either have, or don't have. There is definitely a grey area in between completely in love, and completely not in love. Actually, looking back the uncertainty with not understanding your own feeling has its charm (but that does not help you right now). Frankly, it does not matter whether you are officially and certified "in love". Just ask yourself if you'd like to be with the particular woman who you think you're in love with. If the answer is yes, you should see if you can arrange that to happen. You can only find out if those feelings are true if you spend more time with that woman... Btw, I am not an expert, but I think it is perfectly OK to tell a woman that you 'think you're in love'. You probably won't have to sign a contract where you guarantee that you are definitely in love.

The short term: biofuels. They are affordable and seem to be more sustainable than fossil fuels. Especially the 'second generation' bio fuels, which use agricultural residues and wood seem to be quite sustainable. On the long term: solar energy and wind energy. Right now these seem a little too expensive. But they are very sustainable, requiring far less energy to construct, operate and maintain than they generate in their lifetime. And while fossil energy eventually will get more expensive (even though we go through a dip because of shale gas), wind and solar are continuously getting cheaper. Bio-fuels can technically replace fossil based energy, but to do this for all our fuels would simply require too much biomass. I think that for example the electric car is more likely on the long run, because batteries are still getting better and cheaper. However, in certain fields, like jet fuels, biomass is so far the only sustainable option (because batteries are probably too heavy for airplanes). Technically it is possible, as Lufthansa have shown in 2011. Whether it is economically interesting, time will tell. Fossil fuels certainly are cheaper at this moment. Chemicals and materials will run out. Some chemicals and plastics are not easily made from bio-sources. We are developing new plastics from plant materials though, so this may not be as much of a problem as we currently think. Scared: No. Your government (I'm assuming it's the US govt.) and a lot of other governments are pumping billions into research and commercial subsidies to develop the necessary knowledge to run our economy on sustainable energy sources. In short: the only problem is a lack of investments, not a lack of knowledge. On the short term, yes. On the longer term, I think we'd better use the biomass for chemicals and materials, and get our energy from wind and solar energy.

! Moderator Note wlad, This forum is not the place to continue a discussion you had with some people (who are not here to participate and defend themselves). If you have an issue with the editors of Nature, then I suggest you contact them. (Yes, I know someone asked you if you contacted them. A simple "yes" would have been sufficient.) Thread closed. Members are not allowed to open a new thread with the same topic as this thread.

Call me cynical, but you can still kill a human with a ploughshare. It won't help to just disband our armies, and melt down the weapons. The only way to prevent conflict is when people lose more through war then they can gain. For example, in the EU, the integrated economy means that individual countries must cooperate. Any aggressor in the EU commits economic suicide.

! Moderator Note And indeed it seems that your request is in violation of our rules, section 2, rule 3b, as EdEarl already said. This thread is closed, and will remain closed.

...or in the Netherlands.

I'd like to add another point. When we are discussing our forum rules, especially those regarding flaming and personal attacks, we are in fact discussing language. It is notoriously difficult to paint a completely black-and-white picture regarding things that can and cannot be said on our forum. So, while we can probably agree that name-calling with the intention to insult is not allowed, we cannot specifically tell you where we draw the line. Unfortunately, we must always look at the bigger picture to understand the context. As Ophiolite said, sometimes a set of words can be a joke, and sometimes the exact same words can be an insult. And that is why we do things the way we do it here: - Moderation is done by the moderators. They are human. They are good at understanding the context (better than a computer would be). Unfortunately, they will make mistakes and they can overlook things. - Because moderators are human, and we're dealing with language, the rules are a little fuzzy. That won't change. - The two things above mean you may get away with more on a Friday afternoon than on a Monday. - Everybody knows that the mods can be bribed with cheese nips.

First of all, if anyone ever thinks that there is a personal attack somewhere, the right thing to do is to report it. Now, regarding the crackpots: I think it is a problem here. When someone posts something that we'd call a 'crackpot idea', the correct response would be to patiently explain why the idea is not accepted at this moment by science, and then request that someone explains with some evidence, and that they read the special rules of our Speculations forum. Obviously, this does not always happen. And if some idea is really a crackpot idea, I guess that the mods typically let it go if someone calls someone a crackpot. Heck, we may even say it ourselves. These crackpots are pushing their ideas anyway, and typically they're gone in a few days, because they violate our rules regarding soapboxing/preaching. At the same time, I do think that especially the mods should be an example to others, and therefore it may be a good idea if we reflect on our own behavior. So, for that I would like to express my thanks for opening this thread. We (mods) are also only human, and we can always improve.

! Moderator Note wlad, This is the third thread that you open which is a large piece of text, which contains links to articles or even books that seem essential to the understanding of your point. On other online forums, we can find texts that are rather similar (entire paragraphs are identical). This makes us worried you may be breaking our rules, specifically section 2.2 regarding plagiarism (which, given the title of this thread would be ironic). However, because on that other forum the author has a name similar to 'wlad', it is more likely that you just don't write your posts uniquely for our forum. And if you did write those other posts on other forums as well, we get the impression that have an agenda, and that you use our forum to let the world know about that agenda. That could also violate our rules, specifically section 2.8 regarding soapboxing and preaching. The final possibility would be the worst, which is that you work for the online publishers, and you want to get those articles sold (the sites are requesting payment). That means you break our rules, specifically section 2.7, regarding spamming. I could have sent you a personal message, but for reasons of transparency, I thought it best to post this here. Please check our rules. Don't plagiarize. Don't preach/soapbox. Don't spam. Thanks.

Your lungs are at 37 degrees C, and at that temperture quite a lot of water will evaporate into the air in your lungs. This will always happen. As soon as that moist is cooled, the water will condensate, forming a little 'cloud'. Ice cubes in the mouth would make the water condensate a little earlier. There are other, equally impractical solutions to make the water condensate before it leaves the mouth. The most practical may be to wait for summer? Can you explain why you insist on not having this little cloud?

Play tennis.