Scam product for sale in Guardian newspaper, allegedly

[Linz]

It's okay, just get a flat cap, that'll do it for you!

[Paul Nutteing]

I emailed the Bad Science columnist on the Guardian, he replied only with reference to dodgey PCR / DNA technology not the subject of my mailing. He takes pleasure in exposing dodgey devices etc that rely on unproven technology and dodgey science. Nothing in his piece yesterday exposing the Guardian item. I somehow don't expect to see any write-up in the Guardian about it.

What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch don't want you to know.

nutteingd in a search engine

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots) Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message - it is defunct due to spam.

[Paul Leyland]

Really? Which are those?

Paul

[Bob Eager]

G, probably...

[Ben Blaukopf]

Has it? g has, but that doesn't count.

Ben

[Peter Corlett]

Paul Nutteing wrote: [...]

That's because you haven't bothered with a sig separator, and it's just another couple of paragraphs of text, so it looks like it's part of the body.

[Cynic]

Yes, really. The gravitational constant is decreasing, for instance. It appears to be related to the density of our galaxy, which is becoming less dense as it expands.

[Bob Mannix]

Well, it's an interesting philosophical question! The "laws of physics" (lower case) haven't changed, it's just we didn't quite know what they were in times past (and probably still don't). If one means The Laws of Physics (as written in text books 100 years ago), they do differ in certain areas now. There are many instances but two examples are: wave-particle duality of light and quantum tunneling, both of which were contrary to the Laws of Physics at the time of their discovery.

[Cynic]

I always use "laws of physics" to mean our *present understanding* of the interactions between matter and energy. The only things I would consider to be totally impossible are things that would create a paradox. Such as certain types of time-travel. What if I travelled back in time a mere 5 minutes and killed my past self? Or if I looked into the future and killed the baby who was destined to become the future prime minister? There would be no paradox in *looking* into the past, but interaction with past events would create logical paradoxes. There would also be no paradoxes involved with time-travel into the future, so long as it were a one-way trip.

OTOH, paradoxes involved in time travel disappear if you assume that there is no such thing as free will.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Perhaps you'd name one? All the ones I've seen have some form of whip aerial for SW reception. More efficient, for a start, and would be on MF as well - except that it would be too long for a portable.

[Juggz]

That's not very constant, then, is it?

Glenys

[Juggz]

Cite please. I'm a girl, so I don't understand Physics, and find it Difficult.

Glenys

[DZ-015]

Nice One.

[davebudd]

One man's constant is another man's variable

as old computer programmers used to say

[Sn!pe]

Old computers were like that.

[DZ-015]

-... --- .-.. .-.. -.-. -.- ...

[Palindr☻me]

.. / .- -- / ... --- .-. .-. -.-- / -....- / .. / -.. --- -. .----. - / .... .- ...- . / .- -. -.-- .-.-.- But I do have a few old computers...

[Sn!pe]

Oh, bloody oblate spheroids; I've forgotten all my Morriss Buzzer Code after all these years.

[Sn!pe]

Aargh! I'm in CW Hell! I was only a G8, you know...

[Dr Ivan D. Reid]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:39:09 -0000, N.LENN @ WKX.KM.EU wrote in :

...or: Constants aren't; variables don't.