Leaderboard

I just wanted to express my heartfelt apology to the members of the forum. I was on suspension for a year for very indecent behavior. I hope I can rejoin your community once again.

I think that is the whole point. After all if it wasn't that, why would it be funny to begin with? A good joke often relies to some degree on a surprising change of perception on something that the audience is familiar with. Being offensive just alone is not terribly funny, even if one adds that it was just a joke. Setting up the offensive bit as the punchline (i.e. contextualize it in a manner) can be.

Only part of the big bang perplexes you? Good for you, ALL of it perplexes me.

Sorry if this has been covered before - do these reporters think the public are THAT stupid that they can totally U-Turn on their opinion of a political stance or opinion based upon whether the idea was put forward by a Republican or a Democrat? Obama: "I'll talk to NK" / Fox: "Idiot! Traitor! Who does he think he is?!" Trump: "I'll talk to NK" / Fox "Revolutionary ideas from the pres' to bridge gaps with the enemy! - 3 cheers - Outstanding diplomatic work! - why has no other pres' suggested this?!" Surely the American people are not THAT stupid to be taken in by this nonsense? It is a little depressing.

Holmium (III) Oxide exhibits some pretty dramatic color changes (see this attached photo), but I am uncertain about the mechanism that causes this change to occur. The literature on it is slim, and what exists on the subject is dense and jargon-y, as well as being behind a paywall that my school doesn't subscribe to. Can anyone here explain this phenomenon to me?

Form a hypothesis that can be tested. Form an experiment that can then test the hypothesis, can be replicated easily and is measurable. Perform the experiment. Compare the results with the hypothesis. What is your hypothesis here?

I used to laugh at those types of jokes all the time. Then I had my 11th birthday...

Umm, your memory is in the ditch. This is the third time in two pages I've had to remind you of your own words. Again, singularly dismissive. So you're back to carbon dioxide doesn't affect seawater then?

We're already trying to reduce and cease dependency on fossil fuels. So, that'd be inside of the "what we're already doing" category. Fair enough. I do owe you an apology, as I was wrong.

Seek Ale!

pavelcherepan is being very open for a constructive discussion and frankly I admire his objectiveness. Sensei, don't bring appeal to emotion into this talk. I want to hear Pavel tell us his thoughts from his perspective as a Russian citizen.

It exists in the plot of the Tintin's adventures comic book 'l'affaire Tournesol" 1956 in english https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Calculus_Affair From what i see over the Net such weapons exist. They are used for non-lethal weapons, not for destructing buildings.

Raider - Interesting but not world changing. I think that reducing emissions by displacing high emissions energy with low emissions alternatives must remain as the primary approach and, given that more new generation of electricity is now solar and wind than coal or gas, with storage technologies improving fast, that side of things is progressing better than a pessimist like myself expected. Those alone will not be enough but they are foundations that can be built on. Forestry, even genetically modified and at large scale, may complement other efforts but is not going to replace emissions reductions - even if we start with confidence that it will be cost effective, have no serious negative consequences, are grown under arrangements that can be relied on to last multi-generations and can be shown to divert carbon into sinks that are effectively permanent. Given we are unlikely to see much agricultural land diverted to forestry doing enough to lock carbon to equal what was released by centuries of forest clearing (to make that agricultural land) would be a remarkable achievement, let alone deal with all the fossil fuel burning as well. Biofuels like farmed algae might become a low emissions alternative to some fossil fuels but widespread sowing of oceans and other bodies of water with competitive new species designed to divert carbon compounds from the food chain is going to raise legitimate concerns and objections.

Interesting .Any flesh on that bone?

Fred must be having a bad day. It happens.

Real engineering is quite good.

Here's another.....[more specifically on climate change though.. https://chasingice.com/

You are most welcome. While looking for the details I did notice a host of items on YouTube. I have no idea of their quality, but a minute or two of viewing should give you a good measure. Here are a handful that caught my eye: The Ordovician Age A contrasting pair: Fireball Earth - The Permian Extinction and Snowball Earth - The Permian Extinction Colliding Continents

Yes, the BBC has produced some excellent Earth Science programmes and also issued them on DVD. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Story-DVD-Danielle-Peck/dp/B000FS9SGE Also good The power of the planet series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth:_The_Power_of_the_Planet

On the BBC the following series are well worth viewing. They will be periodically available on BBC i-player, but there should also be DVDs for purchase. Men of Rock - 3 part series " Geologist Iain Stewart retraces the steps of a band of maverick pioneers who made ground-breaking discoveries in the landscape of Scotland about how our planet works." Rise of the Continents - 4 part series " Professor Iain Stewart reveals how our iconic continents were created, and how their tumultuous past has shaped our life today. " and somewhat older, though I recall it as being good. Earth Story - 8 parts - a 1998 documentary presented by Aubrey Manning. May be available on i-tunes. Edit: I'm nost sure what you meant by High Quality. This item on "How Britain Became an Island" is high quality in terms of the research technique and what it revealed, but is low quality in terms of production values. I found it fascinating.

The problem with reputation is that it takes a lifetime to build but only a second to destroy. For better or for worse, the role the US plays in the rest of the world will be forever diminished as a result of this petty, petulant, patheticly insecure, incapable, and otherwise impotently incompetent man.

But that's a subjective opinion. You need another person to confirm that you don't know that you don't know. One data point is not enough.

Truth is like reality. We have no way of knowing what it really is. We have models to describe reality, whether it be particles of the standard model, fields on fields or geometry of co-ordinate systems, but we never actually know what is real. Only what we can perceive and measure. Truth is the same,;it is the concept on which we base good or bad, right and wrong, etc., but it is also a perception, and therefore subjective. If there is an absolute truth as Koty is convinced, is irrelevant. Even the effect it has on us is filtered through our individual 'sense' of perception. And of course that leads to what is right or good for one individual, can be very wrong or bad for another

That’s a very sad thing to hear. People totally lacking in any sense of humanity. But apart from that, there are practical benefits. Helping “third world” countries become more prosperous opens up new markets for products, for example. It also reduces the chance of regional instability which can spread and cause global problems. And also, as NortonH suggests, it would enable the people who can best help the country, to remain there to get an education and employment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

IMHO, making 'criminal offence' from anything is failure of education.. Well educated person in the primary school (as it's obligatory), in the worst case, high school, should understand why they should do something, or not do something, which can kill the all (or significant amount of) people of the world.. Lack of vaccination, can have serious consequences, not just to people who were not vaccinated, but entire population. Somebody who will not be vaccinated, gives chance to virus or other microorganisms to grow, and mutate, and potentially being resistant to existing medicaments and existing vaccines.. and resurrection from current "almost extinct microbe" state (because of lack of hosts, allowing them to mutate and spread around the world).. If somebody after primary school does not understand properly words "evolution", "mutation", what is "DNA", "chemical compounds" etc. etc. He/she is not after "primary school" in my vision of "primary school", just some joke of "primary school".. "Primary", in my vision, should learn everything what is essential. What is required to know for somebody living in XXI century. Primary schools should learn quantum physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, in very tiny detail, not to mention IT, mathematics..

You can't live with this outlook on death. Destroying an ant MUST have different consequences than destroying a human. If the chickens were burnt alive, I consider that unnecessarily cruel and unusual, and it would be criminal in much of the world. If they were killed humanely and then burned, it might have been for medical reasons. If they were burned just to get rid of them, I think that's a waste of good chicken. For me, intent is the key. Killing should never involve more suffering than necessary, and nobody should enjoy suffering even a little bit.

Tub; Scholarship? No. I think Dimreepr finally got one right. Too many beans makes a body windy. Or maybe it is from working with attorneys, who believe that anything that can be stated with 50 words can be better stated with 500 words. (You would think they got paid by the word) In reality, my long posts are probably aggravating to some people, but when I have a good day, I post as much as I can. A few days ago, I was on Page 2 and everyone else was starting Page 5, so I'm catching up. Truth is very simple; it is just a reflection of reality. Then the philosopher said, "What is real?" (chuckle) You're welcome, but it's not really praise -- just an observation. Thank you for this interesting piece of information. I knew that "d" had to come from somewhere. Gee Eise: Although I think your statements are limited as they mostly relate to Science, I agreed with everything that you said, until I read the following: If truth is not subjective, then what is it? You already stated that "'Truth' is not out there.", so it can't be objective. What are lies? Gee