Leaderboard

Thank you, and I’ll say I worked very hard on teaching them how to type / finding an appropriately sized key board, so it’s nice to have my work recognised.

Bad analogy. Ukraine did nothing to attack Russia or promote war. The Ukrainians want to be part of Europe and expressed that, as is their right as a sovereign nation. If they want to join NATO, it's precisely because of Russian past conduct. More like a guy on a barstool gesturing to his friends on the stools west of him, "I'm with these guys. We want to be left alone and not give up our stools. You don't get to take over the whole bar." Zelensky didn't lead his people into war, he represents their wish to be a democracy with beneficial ties to European democracies. If Vladdy doesn't like that westward lean, maybe he should have been more respectful towards Ukraine. Bullying is not a good instrument of foreign relations.

The Peter Piper Institute being a notable exception. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog#/media/File:Internet_dog.jpg

I'm not a smartypants, though it looks as if you may think you are. Offhand, I can see no reason to think U would be an improvement over Pb in a battery. Its chemistry is quite different from that of Pb, it is even heavier, making power to weight ratio even worse and even depleted U is radioactive, making it unacceptable in domestic or road transport use. The fact that the end product of its radioactive decay (after numerous intermediate steps) is Pb is irrelevant to its chemistry.

Sorry. Forgot where everyone got killed and nothing is actually happening now. Hint: As significant as it was, ask yourself how many died? How many injured? Compare to any hour in the last few days in Ukraine. Then compare the results of negotiations.

Couple thoughts - one, if you did nothing to provoke the guy in the bar, why would he be pulling a gun on you for a bar stool? This just underscores the silliness of your analogy and how trivial its stakes are compared to the situation in Ukraine, which is more like a home invasion by destructive and homicidal marauders who want to kidnap you and own your house. (ETA: which I see another poster also pointed out) Two, MacArthur had someplace to run off to and try to acquire more troops, which again doesn't parallel too well the Ukrainian situation. Further, MacArthur refused to leave when ordered to, was utterly opposed to leaving his troops on Corregidor, and it took a special direct order from Pres. Roosevelt to get him to comply. And his troops, left behind, were captured and sent on the Bataan Death March, so MacArthur's actions, even had he done them willingly, were not exactly a brilliant falling back that saved everyone. So your analogies are just getting worse, IMO.

Is there a correlation?

Please provide some evidence.

I’m currently on a skiing trip and these natural sculptures of snow-covered trees make me think of pareidolia* and what triggers the phenomenon. How come I could easily spot a “yeti” but no “elephants”? Is pareidolia affected by the context? I do not know but my curiosity is triggered… By the way, here in the middle, is where I see the "yeti" *) Pareidolia is the tendency for perception to impose a meaningful interpretation on a nebulous stimulus, usually visual, so that one sees an object, pattern, or meaning where there is none. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

So basically you have a bad opinion of him that you want to spin as fact. I haven't seen you once support any of these attacks on his person, and you try to argue that he's an idiot for being a leader who won't back down. I don't mind you having dumb reasoning, but it's so obvious you can't support it with more than hot air from your waving hands, and while your agenda may not be obvious, it still has a smell to it that seems on brand for you. Just sayin'.

If you attempt a meaningful post on a science forum, you should, at least, know the difference between mass and weight. If you don'twish to continue being ignorant of such matters, maybe you should ask. Might save you some more embarassement.

Well, if it were giving up a stool in a bar, there is virtually no cost beyond minor inconvenience and perceived loss of status. Given the cost of engaging the bully over something that has little value to me, I wouldn't consider it. On the other hand, if he barges through the front door of my house, declares that he's moving in and taking the master bedroom before smashing all the dishes and overturning the furniture, I might be a little more inclined to call the police/my friends and neighbors for help. If they sent me a Glock, a box of 9mm rounds and their thoughts and prayers in response, I'd probably be inclined to take matters into my own hands.

While I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to lick the boots of bullies rather than take a stand, do you have any evidence to support this claim?

No way am I going to click like for that... ...ahh...what the heck +1

The words of a 'giant vagina': "I need ammunition, not a ride".

Yes. I think some countries decision to join in the sanctions was partly driven by their fears of China and the desire to show Xi what China could face if it moves on Taiwan or other Asian nations. Or Australia. Disagree with your Biden comments, however. He has done a good job bringing the allies together on strong sanctions. His work isn't flashy or dramatic, but it's quite competent.

I don't know about Swansont & \( \Phi \) \( \forall \), but ask me anything about etc.

I'd think that in a) it's rather n=9 and r=4... The author was right.

Your more likely to get a voluntary confession from an innocent person than a criminal. So far from certain guilt, in fact there's a strong argument to say it's less than a 40% of torturing the guilty person. There could be any number of reason's for that, including contamination/mistakes and a reasonable excuse, all of which need to be explored in a court of law to determine guilt; and even then it will be less than 100% certain. You know what I meant, why are you being deliberately obtuse? Those who smelt it, surely dealt it. Assuming you're a freind, whatever you've done in the past, is not religious or delusional, it's self preservation; because one day it maybe your innocent arse on the line... It's not a badge of honour, it's a membership badge that I'm proud of...

I'd like to know how a US president vetoes projects occurring outside of its borders. Biden dropped support for the Israel pipeline, as there were concerns about environmental impact and economic feasibility, but that doesn't stop it from happening. The only Canadian pipeline that pops up in a search is Keystone, which was for tar sands oil, and it went south, not east. So it was in the US, which is why it was under US jurisdiction.

And in the mean burn Russian fossil fuels...because they don't contribute to global warming.

Folks, even in Speculations we don't bring up religion, and for several good reasons.

Neither. Stating a fact. All of history leads to the present. There is no moment, no single event, at which a chain of causation begins or ends. No new happening has one single cause; every new action causes more events. There are very few Y/N B/W answers in human affairs.

Surely magma production involves more factors than pressure reduction, doesn't it? I seem to recall reading that the magma that produces island arc volcanoes, behind subductions zones, is formed due to a combination of frictional heating of the subducted slab as it descends, combined with the formation of lower MP hydrated minerals, due to the entrained seawater in the slab. Diapirs of magma then rise from the descending slab and, where they reach the surface, volcanoes form. And at hot spot volcanoes, e.g. Hawaii's Kilauea, the magma forms due to unusually high temperatures close to the surface. So it's an interplay of temperature, pressure and mineral melting points.

OK, to show good faith I'll answer again (in the dim hope that you'll do the same); BTW, you not liking my answer, doesn't mean it's not an answer. No, I wouldn't refuse all attempts to extract information and yes I would draw the line at torture, because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers). How do you know the sandwhich and cup of tea has failed? (because no matter how small can't be calculated (unless you can provide the numbers).) How does one pretend to be philosophical? Now that I have answered you in good faith, it's your turn (he asks knowing the answer, does that make me insane?)

Good, coming to your senses I see. As I said previously, we certainly can know with 100% certainty the guilt of a person. The criminal low life may have confessed,,,,the kidnapper may have the child's DNA in his car, in his hair, or under his finger nails. The same of course applies to the low life terrorist. He may have dared us in openly confessing to hving the bomb, he may have the terrorists plans in his pocket of how they managed to get a nuclear device. Now to address a couple of your usual innane "what ifs" or "buts" in your vane attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong. Irrespective, I also said that guilty beyond any reasonable doubt would be morally enough to consider even torture, in the scenarios under discussion. I certainly would find it easier to live with myself in the infinitesimal small chance he was innocent (the terrorist/criminal) rather then have the death of a child or thousands of innocents on my conscience because I had not tried all avenues open to me. 🙄 Because we have already tried all other avenues, even your sweet act of a sandwich and a cup of tea, and they have failed. Did you mention you object being labeled obtuse? 🙄 No, I don't need to crunch the numbers, that's simply your ploy to somehow paint me into a corner, when in actual fact all you are doing is revealing the futility and immoral aspects of your own pretentious decision in not attempting all avenues open including torture. Then you havn't tried all attempts at extracting information, and you pretentiously maintaining your passive stance have cost the lives of a little child and/or thousands of other innocents. In short, I totally reject your actions in not attempting every means possible to save the lives of innocents, in favour of condoning respect for some low life criminal. But hey! we have sorted all that out in another thread! You have 19 pages of examples of that in this thread, with your's and one other's answers and also avoidance of answers to questions. "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it". Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione Not sure really if you have answered in good faith. I suppose the way you wear your passive philosophical stance like a badge of honour, and with such religious fervour, may indicate a form of fanaticism, or delusion? What does your heart tell you about the kidnapped child or the thousands of innocents about to be vapourised, or more importantly, the real life case I raised in the other thread of the deranged low life raping the little girl in the toilet block and then when caught in the act, stabbing one of the rescuers. My heart lies exclusively with those victims, rather then attempting to shore up supports for some unworkable flagging philosophical stance. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 4. The Moral Justification for Legalised and Institutionalised Torture "We have seen that there are likely to exist, in the real world, one-off emergency situations in which arguably torture is, all things considered, the morally best action to perform. It may seem to follow that institutional arrangements should be in place to facilitate torture in such situations. However, it is perfectly consistent to concede that torture might be morally justifiable in certain one-off emergency situations and yet oppose any legalization or institutionalization of torture".

You sound like a big fat black lady

even so, gravity =weight/mass therefore c=√e/m =√e/(gravity/weight) so c varies if gravity varies. c on earth is not the same as c on venus. c in outer space is.....null wow. That would explain why outer space is so dark. please explain how c can be constant everywhere in the universe, given that; mass=gravity/weight therefore c=√e/(gravity/weight) so c varies if gravity varies.

If you have to dodge the question, it just shows that you haven't got an honest answer, that would support your rhetoric. You really are a glutton for spin. That's the rubbish story given out for public consumption. It's done for your benefit, I'm amazed you just tamely swallow it.

Sigh...this forum really doesn't have anyone that looks like they've passed grade 9 by any means. No one even cites their work?