DrKrettin

Everybody translates Heisenberg's principle as Uncertainty, but I have always thought that Indeterminacy is a better translation of his Unbestimmtheit. That way you avoid the association with probability. I remember decades ago reading that Heisenberg preferred that translation as being nearer what he meant, although I have no longer any faith in my memory, and I may well have imagined it.

I have a photo of a manuscript from the 2nd or 3rd century which is the earliest known example of a zero, being a dot. On the bottom line near the righthand corner.

But the first does have an effect on the second in that after the first has picked a sock, the second can no longer pick that particular sock. The choice of socks for the second pick depends on the pick of the first one. I don't really understand what they mean by independent in this scenario, to me it seems redundant and confusing.

Does this all work for other bases? Would it be casting out of 7s in octal, or casting out of Fs in hexadecimal?

I find it very difficult to believe that he said that. A 6-year-old probably does not grasp physical concepts of mass, time, energy, force and 3-D space sufficiently to understand even Newton's laws.

The answer to the thread title is extremely simple: yes

Anybody who denies that there are differences must be clinically insane. Anybody making value judgments based on those differences must be sexist.

All I can think of is a firework attached to one side which explodes, thrusting burnt gunpowder sideways. This would give an impulse which would topple the box (with a bang). This would of course only work if the box is not airtight. (Reminding me of the lorry with a 5 ton load limit, carrying 6 tons of birds.....)

Yes - please stop being so ridiculous.

I thought that too, but thought it too obvious. Also "I struggle up a podium lugging a large ball" negates that possibility because you would not have to lug it. Anyway, it still conforms to the proposition, because it is the heavier air that falls, not the ball.

The subject is an interesting one, but I need a little more padding in that to understand the point.

Living outside the UK, I have discovered that some friends in the UK have adopted the procedure of never actually answering the phone. They check for missed calls and return calls from numbers that they recognize. That explained why when I called old friends they never seemed to be at home. This procedure has been adopted simply because of the number of unwanted sales calls they had. This works as long as you are the only person who does it. If you return a call to somebody who has the same procedure, you'll never talk to each other.

This is actually fascinating, because I have never encountered anybody online who is so absurdly arrogant as to attach so much importance to their "ignore list" on the assumption that it might upset anybody included on it. That, plus the obsession with irrelevant detail about some BA qualification (I dare not be more specific) points to some psychological state which needs some clinical attention. I find myself thinking about Trump for some reason.

It's time you joined the IgnoredByScherado club

Again, you seem to consider these things on a completely rational level. It is as though you have a check list, and potential mates tick various boxes and clock up a score, above which they are suitable as a lifelong mate. If you make choices like that, then I agree that potential genetic problems should be on the list. But if you make decisions using these criteria, my guess is that it is all irrelevant because it won't be a long-term relationship. I hope I'm wrong.