OldChemE

While it is admittedly unscientific, and there don't seem to have been any good studies of the effects of trace amounts of alcohol. I think its worth pointing out that humans evolved in an environment which provided a more or less constant exposure to trace amounts of alcohol in their diet (natural fermentation of food in the absence of preservatives or refrigeration). So, if we gained anything from our evolution, it could well be a tolerance for low levels of alcohol.

Maybe part of the problem is trying to judge interest on the basis of discussion posts. I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy the forum, go to it every evening, and read many posts. However, I frequently have nothing to add that hasn't already been said, and I only log in if I have something to add-- so probably 95% of my activity is never visible. So, my daily visits without signing in leave the impression I'm not involved.

This sounds rather like the moral distinctions from Kohlberg (6 stages of moral development). he basically theorized that the 5th stage was that people behaved in order to comply with the rules of society, while the 6th stage was that people did what they did purely because it was right. Kohlberg, if I remember correctly, thought very few people made it to stage 6. That 5th stage requires laws or some form of punishment ( in the extreme, hell?),while the 6th does not.

Sometimes I'd rather not get in a religious debate (guess I was just taking the easy way out)

My wife and I are of the generation that was dating and getting married when the "pill" was just becoming available. Not at all scientific, but I didn't notice any changes going on in our or our many friends' relationships when the wives starting taking birth-control pills.

It seems to me the pew study, like some others asks the wrong question, and consequently the results are too undefined. I've read the report, and it appears they asked whether or not the respondents believed in God. That's a poor question. Were they asking about belief in a Moral Being created by men to guide behavior? Or were they asking about a physical being that created everything? I believe that people created the concept of God to teach moral behaviors, so you could say I believe in God, but I sure don't think there is some creature out there pulling the strings. I make this point because I have been asked by people "do you believe in God" and I answer in the affirmative but certainly don't mean I think there is some creature who created everything.

I very much preferred my flip phone and resisted for years, but finally got one of the new ones (I intentionally will NOT call it a smart phone-- it has no intelligence of its own!) I tested all the available models to find the largest that will still slide into my shirt pocket. 3.5" wide and 7" long. The length comes in handy because I set the screen saver to show the time as an analog dial superimposed on a picture of the grandfather clock in our home.

Well-- we probably all have our pet peeves--but for communication in science we have to have some terminology-- even if it seems arbitrary. I "grew up" in engineering using English units, and got good at remembering the gravity to force conversion (32.2 ft-lbm/lbf-sec^2). Then the US started using metric which I realized was neat because I didn't have to remember the weird conversions-- until I realized I had to remember the real units behind Newtons and Joules. Newton and Joule should be honored to know that scientists thought so highly of them that they used their names to make metric units less transparent. 😏

You're getting a bit 'testy' here, which I can understand because it is a sensitive subject. Actually, we both don't know for sure what we mean by military grade firearms, primarily because it will depend on whomever is in control of a legislature when a law is passed. As for training, licensing and insurance-- that too is dependent on the whims of government. But I have no problem with that because I voluntarily chose to be trained and licensed, and my liability insurance has no exclusions for firearms. Home defense? In the 12 years I have lived in my current home I have never heard of a home invasion-- that's why my guns are unloaded and locked in the safe. But-- I joined this discussion merely to offer a perspective and I've answered your questions, so I think I will check out.

That is a good question that I have not thought about a lot. It's also a bit too open-ended to answer easily. I see no sense in the proliferation of assault rifles (AR-15's and such) to the general public. On the other hand, virtually any semi-auto handgun could be construed by someone to be 'military grade.' The 1911 pistol was adopted by the US military in 1911-- the design is over 100 years old and still in use (and I own one). If we ban public ownership of anything that is 'military grade' we probably need to go back to revolvers (I own several of those). Assuming, however, we could work out a definition that could rationally be expected to prevent mass killings I would be in favor of the limitation. Maybe we should just ban 'factory made' ammunition but let shooters buy the components to build the ammo 😏

Well, yes. Personally, I have long thought that the 2A will get repealed or heavily modified one of these days, and if things keep going as they are I might even vote in favor of the changes. That, for me is a shame, because I am one of the many, many Americans that own guns as a hobby. I own old guns and/or unique guns. Why? I like to work with my hands and restore/reuse old things. Old cars are too costly and hard to fit on a work-bench in the winter. Many old guns are, with all their drawbacks, marvels of engineering. Ammunition is equally interesting, particularly if you have to search out the brass casings or modify newer casings to fit, and make your own bullets and run the tests to determine which type of gunpowder works best, etc, etc, etc. And then, when you think you have everything just perfect, you can go out to the shooting range and kill pieces of paper, find out things are not perfect, and go back to the work bench for further improvements. And I don't carry a gun, and they go to the range unloaded and come home unloaded. And I don't belong to the NRA either. I would say, however, that the oft-repeated thing about the huge number of guns owned in the US is a red-herring. Many of us that own many guns are hobbyists such as myself, and most of those guns are old -- not the ones that are best for the killing.

As noted by exchemist many explosives (including gunpowder) have a built-in oxidizer. The primer in a gun cartridge does not provide oxygen-- it only provides the energy (fire in the case of a primer) to get the chemical reaction started. So, if you really wanted some sort of similar reaction as your energy source you could use some controlled system that feeds discrete quantities of explosive into a chamber and then ignites the explosive using an electrically generated spark. Essentially an internal combustion engine but using a powder instead of a liquid.

Tototally agree. Somehow I find it amusing that one of the oldest principles from the very early days of computer technology has suddenly come back to haunt us in AI: Garbage in-garbage out.

As an alternative, try expressing the situation as an oscillation (I say/he says/.......). When there is too much feedback the oscillation amplitude increases. The goal of conflict resolution is to reduce the amplitude of the oscillation until it approaches zero. In therms of a classical electrical oscillator, this means damped oscillation. The appropriate equations can be found in electrical textbooks. The point of using the oscillator analogy is that an argument can be de-escalated by making small concessions that gradually reduce the amplitude of disagreement (i.e. by turning the out of control oscillation into damped oscillation).

My how times have changed. The last time I saw verbatim answers to a math problem my school gave all 6 of the boys automatic zeroes on the assignment, and retrieved the stolen teachers edition of the textbook they were using.