grasshopper

Thanks for your reply, Niemand.

Thanks for your replies guys. As a layman, it's interesting trying to understand all these things. There is a reply for Alorael, if you care to read it; and brace yourself, as it is fairly long.. I feel as though I have just picked at a fresh scab, and am currently watching all of the blood flow out... From the top: Quote: “The Dobson unit is a measure of ozone in a column, but it has nothing to do with imagining it to be compressed at sea level. Instead, it’s a measure of the total amount of ozone. Yes, the units are in dekamicrons (how’s that for a bastardized unit?), but 10 µm at IUPAC standard temperature and pressure is just a different way to express the number of molecules.” The “measure” (in dekamicrons if you must) is arrived at by assuming ALL of the ozone molecules are in one place – in one “layer” (the measure IS a measure of the theoretical “thickness” of that layer). See: http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_unit If that doesn’t mean we “imagine” all the ozone from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere is “imagined: to be “compressed” into one layer (approximately 300 units thick, I don’t know what does. Quote: “UV doesn’t exactly create ozone. In fact, UV photons split ozone molecules into oxygen gas and free oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms react with oxygen gas to reform ozone, or with each other or with ozone to form one or two molecules of oxygen gas, respectively. ” Errh, for a start, I never got so complicated as “UV photons”. I said “sunlight”, which encompasses it all – I write for the layman. Second, “ozone molecules” don’t come from “nowhere”, to then be “split into “oxygen gas and free radicals”. In fact, ozone is not a “natural” state of oxygen at all – good old boiler-plate O2 oxygen is. Certain wavelengths of UV light react with ordinary, everyday O2 to produce O3. This is a higher energy, unstable state of O which quickly loses energy and restabilises as O2. Yes, there is a certain band of UV light which has the above-described effect. However, the statement in its entirety gives the impression that the starting point is O3, and UV light causes it to become O2. It pretty-much all starts out as O2, not the other way around. Therefore, yes, sunlight DOES create ozone, and is in fact the biggest (by far) creator of it. Lightning, electric motors and a few other things also impart the extra energy, but by comparison these are minute. Quote: “Ozone is formed in areas with more sunlight, but those “slipstream currents” of moving air relocate parts of the atmosphere and can take a while to do so. generally, air moves from the equator to the poles, and does so slowly.” Yes, this is exactly what Professor Dobson was trying to demonstrate, amongst other things. Quote: “The biggest problem with the argument posted is that its structure posits that the hole in the ozone is false, argues that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents and showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter, and therefore concludes that the hole in the ozone is false. Winter isn’t when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it’s in the spring, which is the fall for those of us north of the equator.” Yes, the “argument” posits that the “hole in the ozone layer is false” (since there is no “layer”, only a mathematical computation of how much ozone exists in a column of air from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere. By virtue of the nature of its measurement, it is impossible to determine from a Dobson Unit reading WHERE (at what altitude) any particular concentration of ozone may exist. Yes, there are other ways to measure this. However, the oft-times shown “maps” published ad-nauseam each September purporting to show a “hole” over Antarctica are maps of Dobson Units and actually, by definition, show no such thing – only a general depletion of ozone exactly as predicated by Dobson on which to found his experiment. Yes, the claim is that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents. This is what he was awarded the “International Geophysical man of the Year” for. It is beyond my power to correct the crap that has subsequently been written about the man in order to fit the “politically correct” script of “holes in the ozone layer”. Quote: “showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter” ‘Scuse me? Dobson’s whole hypothesis was that there shouldn’t be much ozone at all in winter – the fact that there was more than there should have been was his basis for experiment. Yes, it is most depleted in winter – just as it should be – it just isn’t depleted as much as should be accounted for by the complete absence of sunlight. Quote: “Winter isn’t when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it’s in the spring,” Anybody want to direct me to a study ANYWHERE that supports this contention. Let me state the sentence a slightly different way, much closer to the truth: “Winter isn’t when STORIES APPEAR IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA about the Antarctic ozone hole though, THE STORIES APPEAR IN THE SPRING. I think that’s far closer to the truth. The reality is the stories appear at the end of winter (which is the beginning of spring), when the measured ozone depletion is at its highest. Outside of Dobson’s original work, I’ve never seen any figures anywhere on the state of depletion at any other time other than when the “maps” are printed in the newspapers in September. Is it slightly higher in August or October? Or July or November? Anybody got figures? A peer-reviewed paper perhaps? Quote: “So yes, ozone circulates, and its behavior isn’t what we’d expect from the total absence of movement. But there is a hole, and the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catalyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs. You can either reject all the scientific work as the publications of corporate shills that nobody has bothered to verify or you can accept that the argument is both factually wrong and poorly constructed.” So, after all that, “there IS a hole” – where? In what? Quote: “And the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catylyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs” Yes, they were. After about (if memory serves correctly) six years and untold millions of dollars in “research funds” (mostly taxpayer’s money) a lab finally managed to “recreate” this entirely hypothetical chemical reaction in a lab, under strictly lab controlled conditions. The fact that it has never actually been observed or measured in the “REAL” world (ie in the atmosphere) before or since is, of course, totally besides the point to those for whom observable fact (empirical evidence), is merely an inconvenience. Note also that “alkyl halides” (confusing chemistry speak for, in this case, CFC’s), were not, even in a lab, shown to “cause” ozone depletion”. Rather, a “mechanism” of alkyl halides (CFC’s) – in a lab – were shown to “catylyize” ozone depletion. What this post normal science double-speak actually refers to, of course, is a reproducible experiment which showed that, if, under certain favourable lab conditions, you superheated CFC’s, they released super-reactive, hot chlorine ions, which “broke down” O3 to O2 (the natural fate of O3 molecules anyway). The offered “proof” that this was actually happening, was to record the incidence of hot, highly reactive chlorine ions in the upper atmosphere at the Antarctic, during the Ozone Minimum (September), and attribute the depletion to said hot, reactive chlorine molecules, which in turn were attributed to the breakdown of CFC’s. The fact that the readings were taken over an active volcano (Mount Erebus) which was spewing forth more hot, reactive chlorine in a year that the total amount available from the catalytic conversion of all the CFC’s ever produced by Mankind, ever, was entirely besides the point.

Originally Posted By: Master1 Also: Originally Posted By: boggle Just found this thing, and as you are all much cleverer than me; I was wondering if you could do the decent thing, if you feel so inclined, and demolish this comment! Are you asking us to call this BS? Not really, saying you are much cleverer than me, I hope is true, and I'm really interested in watching you all pick it apart, or prove it's correctness. As this is contrary to what I learnt to be true, I'm expecting a more thorough demolishing than I can presently manage.

Just found this thing, and as you are all much cleverer than me; I was wondering if you could do the decent thing, if you feel so inclined, and demolish this comment! In brief, there ARE no “holes” in the ozone layer, simply because there IS no ozone “layer”. The only place an ozone “layer” exists is as an imaginary construct to allow the calculation of overall ozone levels in the atmosphere, and compare those levels, one place to another. As such, the ozone “layer” is as “real” as the “two dimensional plane extending in all directions to infinity”, that allows for our geometry axioms (definition of a point, line, parallel lines etc). Ozone concentration is measured in “Dobson Units” on a “Dobson Spectrophotometer”, or an updated version of same. A Dobson Unit is the amount of ozone in a column of air from ground level all the way out to the edge of the atmosphere. For the purpose of calculation it is then ASSUMED that all those molecules of ozone are then compressed into a “layer” at sea level. By comparing this ASSUMED thickness in different places, one can say there is “more” or “less” ozone in the atmosphere at a certain place, from sea level to the outer edge of the atmosphere. This ASSUMED “layer” – created entirely as a mathematical construct, is the only “real” layer of ozone there is. Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen – O3. Basically, oxygen as we know it is O2 – two atoms of O get together and form a fairly stable relationship. However, if a little energy is applied the two O atoms get all excited, split up, and then reform as a threesome – O3 (like some marriages). But O3 is pretty unstable, and very quickly loses the additional energy required to maintain that state, and disintegrates back to the more stable O2 again (also like some marriages). The energy to allow O2 to become O3 can come from many sources. However, the most common source is good old sunlight. And since we have O2 rising up from the surface of the planet, up through the atmosphere, and sunlight reaching us from outer space, it stands to reason that the place where MOST O3 is formed is where these two meet – at the edge of the atmosphere. This is where people erroneously think the mythical “ozone layer” exists. It also stands to reason that, if there is a lack of oxygen or sunlight, there will be less ozone. And guess what folks, for some months of the year there is NO sunlight at the southern polar regions (southern hemisphere winter), and a similar effect in the north polar regions during the northern hemisphere winter. It is no accident that the horror stories about the dreaded “ozone hole over Antarctica”, always appear in September, at the end of the southern hemisphere winter. Back in the 1950′s there was a very bright man called Professor Gordon Dobson. Professor Dobson fully understood the ENTIRELY CYCLICAL NATURE of ozone depletion over the poles during their respective winters, due to the lack of sunlight. Professor Dobson also believed there were high level air currents which he called “slipstream currents”. He wanted to prove the existence of these currents, but it is very hard to “tag” some air and see where it goes. So he devised an experiment: by rights, there should have been little or no ozone over Antarctica during winter (no sunlight). However, the good doctor postulated that there would be, because it would be brought in by his theorised “slipstream currents”. All he needed was a way of measuring ozone concentrations. So he invented the Dobson Spectrophotometer and the Dobson Unit. Then he spent the winter of 1957 at Antarctica measuring the flux of ozone concentration in the atmosphere. From its varying densities he was able to prove both the existence of his slipstream air currents, and produce the first maps of their directions. 1957 was the “International Geophysical Year”, and for his efforts Dobson was named “International Geophysical Man of the Year” (sorry ladies and women libbers, that was the name of the award). In 1962 he co-wrote a book about it all called “Exploring The Atmosphere” which was one of my science textbooks at high school. Incidentally, you will learn very little of the above from googling “Professor Dobson” or “Dobson Unit”. The “official” story of Dobson now available on the net is so far divorced from the reality as to render the current version little more than fairy tale. When DuPont Chemicals invented chloroflourocarbons (CFC’s), the company was still very much controlled by the DuPont Family. They realised the implications of cheap refrigeration for the world and allowed CFC’s to be produced under licence by other companies at a peppercorn fee. By the early 1980′s Dupont Chemicals was controlled by the Canadian/American Bronfmann Family, which made its fortune during the prohibition by bootlegging. The family patriach, Edgar Bronfmann did not like the fact that the company was “losing” money from the sale of CFC’s. Bronfmann had Dupont’s research department pretty much “invent” the entire CFC “holes in the ozone layer” myth, complete with bought and paid for peer-reviewed papers (sound familiar?). Bronfmann then spent a fair bit of money financing greenie groups, mobilising them to “protest” against the “terrible” CFC’s that were “destroying” the ozone layer (also sound familiar?). In 1987 Bronfmann personally financed a greenie groupie event in Montreal, out of which came the infamous “Montreal Protocol”, calling for the banning of CFC’s. The rest is history.

bugger. Now you tell me!

Well that's unfair. Pretty much the first post I read here on the forums all those years before was if you have a problem, search the forums and find the answer before you post. I found all my answers on the forums, so never posted!

For most of the past 5 years, I've been a lurker. Can I take oldbie status?

post count, seriously, gaf!

those two wikis should be merged, with walkthroughs added

Originally Posted By: lampshade Jeff you're the noise that's causing my happy avalanche to happen. Well that is high praise indeed...

Whilst all this talk about prosthetic limbs is all well and good, helping the disabled achieve amazing feats of agility. I think we are still being far to humanist. By that, I mean I want to see a dolphin in the swimming race, and a big cat in the running race. Once we are all like the 6 million dollar man, running against normal humans is just going to be too boring.

That sounds good. It would make even more sense if at level 1 or whatever you could daze a normal weak baddie but control a cockroach. A continuum of power, meaning that there is no specific kick in level for a spell, just a probability range, that drastically scales up after a certain level.

Here it is, better than cheese rolling, it is ....drum roll,,,, the Mud Olympics! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pictureg...ar-Hamburg.html

I've got a hp mini as well, I was a bit annoyed when I realized I initially couldn't play Geneforge. I got it to work in the end... on someone else's computer.

Well in that case don't get a wireless mouse, all that money on batteries has to come from somewhere.

Jeff is right, there really aren't too many games that have different starting points. Morrowind sidesteps it to a degree, by being so incredibly vast, that you can play for hours and hours and hours, and hours and hours with absolutely no idea about what you really should be doing next.

I think I agree with everyone else here about screen resolution. There were two reasons I first got in to spiderweb style games 1. I was bored of my gamecube 2. My first mac was pre-intel and was too slow to run DOSbox games, and couldn't run windows for more modern games. I would highly advise a lower screen-res. But then again I may be wrong, I only play games, not make them. I wish you the best of luck! I'm sure that making a game from scratch is a non-trivial thing.

It also means "Please accept my present to you, a professor" in Scouse. Did Jeff intend this meaning?

$20 dollars? That is a few hours hard work for some people. You must be able to find a good mouse for cheaper than that. Just don't buy a poncy mouse.

Originally Posted By: Spidweb They take his new wife and pull her through the door, which closes behind them. Bluebeard sings about how sad he is. I always suspected polygamy was a female conspiracy. I bet they all gang up on him when playing Monopoly as well.

I've just remembered this initiation rite in to this running club, whereby whoever was wearing new shoes had to fill the shoe with beer and down it, after running in them of course. There was a poor illegal immigrant, recently arrived from some war torn country, happy to be safe, proudly sporting his new shoes that he had bought from money earnt picking berries or something. My heart went out to him. He looked like he was going to cry. But hey, what can you do?

how come? traditional anchor shortage?

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan Quote: If anything on Earth is its reproductive system, it's us. Yeah, beat me to it. Terraforming other planets in the distant future to be more Earth-like could be a form of reproduction. You sound like Asimov

It's that time of the year again, and for the nth year running, I've been away from home, and unable to go cheer on my local sporting greats, the cheese rollers! Pictures here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...fety-fears.html some of the videos on youtube are very amusing. Does anyone have a local tradition, crazier, quirkier, or more dangerous than this?

I guess that most people see democracy as being the ability to elect representatives to a governing body that reflect ones views and concerns. In the case of the article and the radio interview they will be talking about established Government norms in western societies, not libertarianism. here is a copy and paste from the article: Quote: We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course. But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while. That was Lovelock, who of course wrote the groundbreaking book in the early '70's that along with the book Silent Earth helped kickstart the environmental movement.