g.johnson

Both are availaible in Chelsea too. I can't remember the exact name, but there's a beef in oil and chili dish that's very good but not for the faint of heart.

I think we would all save a lot of time if we only mentioned the weather in Scotland when it's not pissing down with rain.

Edit: Redundancy.

I can see that with restaurants rated poor, or even satisfactory. But one star is meant to represent 'good'. It's an underused rating, in my view. (Sorry for the delay -- I've been curing world trade center cough all day.)

But then again, All in the Family and Sandford and Son.

The New York Times ratings also suffer from grade inflation. Restaurants are hardly ever rated poor or satisfactory and rarely good (one star). Grimes claimed he was going to change that, and his ratings did initially seem lower than what's her names*, but I think he's slipped. *Pre-senile dementia.

Some bucolic idiocy for scarecrow, no?

The Peat Inn, near St. Andrews. Nice place to stay and a very good restaurant.

Radiation involves heat transfer via electromagnetic radiation. It would work in a vacuum.

Found it. Sorry. I lied. That's just a summary.

I was just on the EPA website and couldn't find a link to their report. Do you have it?

Here’s another. Wilson N, Thomson G: Still dying from second-hand smoke at work: a brief review of the evidence for smoke-free workplaces in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2002; 115(1165):U240

I only have the abstracts (quoted above in full) so I don't know. It's worth noting that of the 6 or so abstracts I read, none doubted the proposition that second hand smoke kills people.

Doesn't that beg the question? Why do you assume no smoking effect.

Because you smoke at home too?

Woodward A, Laugesen M: How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke? Tob Control 2001; 10(4):383-8 Miner RN, Crutcher JM: Second-hand tobacco smoke in Oklahoma: a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality and means of reducing exposure. J Okla State Med Assoc 2002; 95(3):135-41

Not true. First, of course, the EPA has nothing to do with breast implants. You mean the FDA. The FDA was only given authority to regulate medical devices when silicone breast implants were already in use. In view of health concerns the FDA required manufacturers to provide safety information on both silicone and saline breast implants. This would of course be necessary for any new drug or implantable device. Two manufacturers performed the necessary studies for saline implants, but no manufacturer has for silicone. Silicone implants are available as an 'investigational new device' for post-mastectomy reconstructive surgery. You are correct that there is no evidence of adverse systemic reactions to silicone implants. However, as there is no medical benefit to implants, the onus is one the manufacturer to prove safety. Read all about it.

I hate the country.

These clever froggy chaps can never quite decide whether they love or loathe physics, can they? Understanding it, however, is clearly beyond them.

Burning wood produces water vapor. Don't know if it makes any difference, though.

Unless your father has strict dietry restrictions from a medical point of view, I see no reason why the hospital would object to your bringing in food. I've certainly done that before.

How on earth is fuzzy logic applied to rice cooking?

You mean 'emetic'.

That's not to say that Stephanie isn't correct in stressing the recent immigrant aspect of what we normally think of as 'ethnic'. Just that it's not a sufficient condition.