Huguenot

@Goodkick - whoever the fuck you are Will you fuck off? Fucking moron. 100 different usernames, continuous bullshit. You fucking prick. Fuck off.

You think we're not rich? There's people just across the water from me (so shallow you could almost wade it) getting by on $10 a week with a life expectancy of 35 years - and in ED you've got 10 year old kids getting mugged for their $800 smartphone and $1500 laptop. The unemployed are whingeing because they're bored with the 40 games on their Sony Playstation, and the healthy are complaining about a 3 month waiting list on cosmetic surgery. The homeless are pissed off that they need to wait for a four bedroom house by living in a hotel. 14 year-olds are so scornful of education that they feel it gets in the way of buying jewellery and drinking Absolut, and parents are so scornful about the widespread availability of quality food that they shove burgers through the school gates. You think we're not rich?

If you're an accountant you'd amortise the cost of computer equipment across 3 years - in other words they know they only last 3 years. Can't recommend deals for you I'm afraid, I'm in the wrong country ;-) I guess whether it's good value or not boils down to what you use it for - it's essentially 70p a day. What else would you spend that 70p on?

The reason why I don't expect cloned meat to be labelled 'cloned' is that it's a misdirection - it doesn't mean anything. It's like getting obsessive about whether a potential boyfriend's brother wears blue socks: the only vaalid answer to the 'cloned' question is WTF? Are you serious? There are far more important things to know before you get to cloning - exactly what maxxi says: food, rearing, slaughter, hanging, transport are all more important. Just to remind huncamunca again - it's not the Guardian, it's the Mail that's pushing this agenda.

I read the Guardian, and don't have an issue with it? It appears instead, huncamunca, that the problem is with the Daily Mail and Frankenfoods. It seems the Mail have a bigger problem with cloned meat than they do with Europe?

He's quite right in one way - there isn't such a thing a 'centrifugal' force - in the sense that this is a word used to describe a force that 'pushes away' from the centre. No such force exists. However, there must always be a centripetal force in order to have an orbit. The appearance of a 'centrifugal force' is because of the interplay between momentum and a 'centripetal' force. A centripetal force can be any force that attracts an object to a single 'centre' point. For example it could be gravity, or it could be tension in a piece of string being whirled around our head. Momentum is what makes an object go in a straight line, and is calculated as mass x velocity. The the centripetal force drags the object in towards the centre - and the compromise between this and momentum is what traces a circular direction. Think of this like two dogs pulling a sled. Both dogs are pulling in slightly different directions, so the line the sled actually goes down is a compromise between the two forces. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/imagedb/albums/scaled_cache/centripedal-316x300.png So when we whirl a weight around our heads we're making very complicated and precise calculations. If we whirl it too slowly then momentum will be smaller and the weight will fall in to the centre and hit our ankles. If we whirl it too fast then the momentum will create a force greater than the strength of the string, it'll break and the weight disappear into huncamunca's shed windows. Then we'll have a cat problem.

Well, it's not round, it's not even spherical. The closest mathematical comparison is 'oblate spheroid' or more accurately still a 'geoid'. ;-)

Well, I'm a great fan of parma ham - so if cooking's the problem there are plenty of options out there. Do you think this 'clone' argument is a 5th column from the veggie brigade? A mask for another attack on meat-eaters?

We eat and drink cloned stuff every day. Most wine grapes are cloned. All seedless grapes are cloned. Red Delcious, Gala and even the most quintessential English apple: The Granny Smith are all clones. We don't have a problem with that. The difference between animal and vegatable is very grey: many steps from single to multiple celled entities, through to even complex ideas like a central nervous system or mobility, can contain components that are more commonly (but NOT exclusively) found on one side of the dividing line or the other. In other words it's very fragile and arbitrary to define something as an animal or a vegetable. In that sense this argument is entirely subjective, and unlikely to reveal any definitive answer. We also have no real objection to animal clones: we don't terminate identical twins at birth simply because they are clones. Hence we can't really have a rational objection to cloned meat - there must be some other problem. I think the problem is that despite the way that humans worship the sanctity of the human existence, we're also bright enough to recognise the things we have in common with other animals. This means that if we can clone animals, that means we might be able to clone each other - and that presents us with a serious challenge with our own identity - the comfortable belief that we are unique and therefore special. The answer to that is to find a philosophy for identity that doesn't rely so much on where we come from or what we're made of. Instead start thinking about who we are, what we do, and what we contribute. We make our own identity, it's not imposed upon us. I don't have any problem with clones - I'm virtually a clone of my own father. I don't have any problem eating them either.

Today's weird one... the Moon doesn't orbit the Earth! In fact both the Moon and the Earth orbit around their mutual centre of gravity. If you imagine balancing a bamboo cane horizontally on your finger, the point of balance is the centre of gravity of the cane. If you put a heavy weight on one end, and a light weight on the other end, you'd need to balance the cane with your finger closer to the heavy weight. Because of their relative mass, the centre of gravity of a line between the Earth and the Moon is much closer to the Earth (in fact it's about 1,000 miles below the surface of the Earth. But neverthless, both bodies orbit around this point, not around the Earth. On another point, have you noticed how weak gravity is? You can beat it just by jumping in the air.

So yes Chick, it absolutely does! For example Hussain Bolt is more massive (and hence on Earth he weighs more) when he's running the 100m than when he's standing still. However, at low relative speeds (running 100m relative to standing still) it's not noticeable - because "e=mc2" means the addditional mass is calculated by dividing the relative 'running' energy (a small number) by the square of the speed of light (which is a very big number). This is one reason why you can never quite reach the speed of light - because as you go faster you become more massive, which means you need even more energy to go faster still, which makes you more massive... and so on... At the speeed of light, your mass would be infinite.

Blinking heck - how did we manage to have Sri Lanka on the ropes at 278/6 and then now end up at 376/7

*Scratches head*

I don't think the answer to racist bigots is to give them what they want.

After which Cassius?

Possibly, but these men would be being 'used' I suspect... not really an admirable trait in itself.

thomastillingthe3rd is AllforNun. They're the only two idiot personas who use the term 'brap brap brap' when they bizarrely think they've said something clever.

Hmmm... I always suspect there's a coded message from women who make sweeping comments about what men seek in the fairer sex as a justification of their lack of success ;-). For example I reckon there's a tendency in overbearing controlling women to claim that there's nothing wrong with their own behaviour, it's just that men want vacant bimbos. Rather than recognise that in reality they're pushy and avaricious, these women instead claim to be an 'action woman' - and rather than recognise that they're mean and self-centered, instead they claim that men have a problem when they 'go running for mummy'. All of my mates have very beautiful, proactive, generous and capable partners - so there's no evidence that these are qualities best avoided in women....

WTF? Are you for real? DJKQ it is entirely normal to respond to a comment by a previous poster on a thread. I was responding to Marmora Man's point about whether the Conservatives were 'loving' the cuts. If that makes me 'ignorant' then it makes every poster on this forum 'ignorant' including yourself. In fact, I don't think it makes me or them ignorant, it just makes you a sanctimonious dickhead who would be wiser to look to herself before calling people names. Neither was I implying that the 9m salted away is a scandal - I was highlighting that Labour cannot take the Tories to task for cuts in services if Labour are actually cutting them further than necessary. And in fact I was never talking about 'waste' either, that'll be you doing that. What I was highlighting is Labour hypocrisy. So you can put your snotty comments up whichever orifice they'd feel most at home.

Not allowed to mention what? What have I missed? What's going on?

I don't know what tt3 said, nor am I interested, but I was intrigued by James B's assertion that Labour councils are kind of 'over-cutting' and salting money away to inactivity (I think 9 million was the figure for Southwark). If this is the case, I think it deserves looking into. It would suggest that Labour are the ones 'loving it', and prepared to cut back on vital services in order to drive forward a political attack.

1,000 for a PR release? HA! That'll be one scientist who's created a chemical formula for the best biscuit to dunk in your tea ;-)

:)) I'm just having a bit of fun - I thought the perfectly efficient winkey smiley would have conveyed the fact that I don't think you're all morons? These things are just really cool, no? I'm sharing things with you that before yesterday I didn't know!!! I'm really excited by them! They're cool! My exclamation mark key is really gettting worn...

Quids, you're such a pissy bastard sometimes. 300 peeps would be considered enough for a national snapshot, but anything on the EDF is likely to be dominated by liberal altruists. All s/he needs to do is highlight this in the results, s/he's not trying to change the world or write policy.

Seconded. Fuck these cunts.