badgerx16

"The British government plans to meet with Internet service providers in the country next month to discuss the idea of censoring all Internet connections and requiring users to specifically request access to pornographic materials from their ISPs". Is this a good idea or too much 'nanny state' mind control ? Is it the responsibility of parents to put the controls in place on their PCs, or does the state have to intervene ? Is it possible for any state to control the Internet in this way, without being seen as authoritarian ? Is this an attack on free speech and freedom of expression ? Discuss !!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101219/tc_mashable/uk_conservatives_want_to_block_all_internet_porn And one for Dune http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339926/Internet-pornography-Parents-allowed-block-sexual-imagery.html

But it cannot read the security code printed on the back, nor can it read your mind to get the PIN number, which should still be required for PayPass payments of over £10, or the 3D security code that MasterCard have introduced for online payments..

2 years ago South Africa successfully chased 414 on this ground.

This has been bothering me, mainly because it's about 30 years since I did degree level organic chemistry, and it didn't seem to make sense, ( the bits on this thread, not the degree modules ). However, with a bit of digging, I think what will happen to the 1 in a trillion radioactive methane molecules, CH4, is that the C14 nucleus will decay, ( a neutron emits an electron (a beta particle)) and the carbon turns into a nitrogen atom. A consequence is that the newly formed nitrogen atom can not make any of the chemical bonds that carbon does, so the hydrogen atoms are released. Second, when the C14 decays, the beta particle is emitted with an energy of up to 154,000 electron volts (154KeV). That literally blows the nitrogen right out of the molecule; chemical bonds have an energy of about 30 to 40 electron volts and it takes only about 10 to 20 eV to strip an electron off of an atom. This ejection of the newly formed atom is termed the "Szilard-Chalmers Effect". I think that as a consequence, the four 'orphaned' hydrogen atoms will reform as two H2 molecules. ( And on that note, it's time for bed ).

That's all well and good, but any kiwi or ocker members will find out there's an ice age on the way.

Where's the evidence for your claim about ALL carbon in the trapped methane being C14 & therefore now, according to your statement, all the atoms being Nitrogen ?

That's up to the mods.........

They are not the fount of that particular knowledge stream ffs. My understanding is based on 2 main foundations; the first is the raft of scientifc research and sources concerning this process; the second is that I feel I am qualified to assess this information and form an educated opinion, given I have 4 science A levels and a science degree.

Maybe he was putting it in terms you might understand

They have admitted that beyond about 2 days they are only about 40% accurate, and have stopped trying to 'forecast' in the longer term completely. This winter has a long way to go yet, let's wait and see.

Dune, find some REAL science to support your argument - I am afraid that anonymous Daily Express junior hacks really have zero credence.

Did you forget that hotbed of Marxist conspiracies the Meteorological Office

If it ever came to pass I would, but as it won't I shan't have to.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear : http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm "As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.” http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_sunspots_affect_global_warming "We suspect that sunspots do not affect global warming and there is no evidence that they do. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_sunspots_affect_global_warming#ixzz18OnUQPX5" http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/ "Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 "There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, e.g. making up as much as 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere" Don't think there is that much C14 locked up in the tundral CH4.

So, let's take the children on both sides out of the argument :- We would have a man with convictions for drug dealing, burglary, driving without any form of licence, and for whom the reason for seeking asylum has been removed. What would you do with him ?

I don't think they are married. He also has convictions for burglary and drug dealing.

As the victim's father put it, "If it is so unsafe to send him back to Iraq, what did so many of our soldiers die for ? He fled Saddam, Saddam is dead. The court has upheld his 'human right' to a Family Life, what about mine ?"

They're not embarrassing, they are perfectly predicted by the theories and the science. Try doing some research.

"Microsoft security" ( a personal and professional prejudice I hold against Micro$haft )

Do you accept that the Earth orbits the Sun ? ( As proven by science ). Do you accept that you require Oxygen to live ? ( As proven by science ) Do you accept that a kidney transplant can help extend a patient's life ? ( As proven by science ) All of these were born of theories, and all were initially dismissed as fanciful.

I always worry about them 'axeing' each other questions.

LOL at the bookie who's already paid up on England retaining the Ashes.

It is also prone to being correct.