mistermack

Once you've harnessed it, what do you do with it? Find a way to STORE wind energy cost-effectively and you can order your yacht.

That is true. But try it with a real woman. It's fantastic !!

No.... I was certainly not thinking of you. Not unless you went backwards through this thread and posted dislikes on my posts. Which someone did. Not that I put any value on it, but it does seem to indicate a bit of a rabid reaction.

My experience was the same. Sardines were little ones, packed like the pic in the OP. Bigger ones were called Pilchards, and came in a tomato based sauce, in the ordinary cylindrical tin. I always liked them, and never saw them as a bargain snack. ( I prefer the Pilchards version though ). I really prefer tinned pilchards to tinned Pacific Salmon, even though the Salmon is double the price. One thing I have noticed in the fishmongers is the smaller size of Mackerel. I won't buy them, if they are taking them that small. Firstly for the conservation reason, and secondly, the big ones are better anyway. But it is very sad that they're catching them that small. I'd rather go hungry.

I'm not going to post again, people are getting too hostile over nothing. But to anyone coming fresh to this, I would just point out that the baker WON his case on a vote of 7-2. You would think from reading this forum that he was kicked out of court. The ruling was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were unduly hostile towards the baker. That sounds vaguely familiar to me. Shame that people can't have a civilised discussion, even when they disagree. "The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination." CNN. So the Colorado Civil Rights commission were perfectly happy to give their ruling, based on their guess at the baker's motives. But I'm apparently right out of order to suggest any motive for the complainants. What ludicrous double standards.

Yes, I knew there was something wrong with that straight after I wrote it, but wasn't sure what, so I thought it better not to edit it. I was thinking more about what happens up near the speed of light, when kinetic energy is increasing towards infinity.

I've pointed out facts. The fact that same-sex marriage wasn't allowed or recognised in the state of Colorado in 2012. The fact that they went to Massachusetts to get wed a month previous to the cake order. The fact that same-sex marriage was a hotly debated topic in 2012, both in Colorado and the rest of the country. The fact that it's fundy Christians who oppose it the most. All facts relevant to the case and discussion, and facts that are reasons that I gave why I suspect the motives of the cake buyers. It clearly shows that gay weddings were hot politics in 2012, and that it would be ludicrous to propose that this guy was unaware of all that, having gone to Massachusetts to get married. Another fact is that I never claimed Colorado as Bible belt, I just hinted at it, when I said, "if I was gay, getting married in the bible belt". So I'd like to see the proof of that claim. However, for the record, the whole USA is bible belt to me, compared to where I live.

But, it's a political question, in the politics section. If you follow politics, you will find opinions are the currency, not scientific facts.

That's absolute rubbish. I've not claimed at any point that I have proof of anything. I clearly said I was giving my opinion, and gave reasons for that opinion. You've just ignored that, and gone straight for the old internet "prove it" fallacy. Giving your opinion doesn't imply that you have proof in your back pocket. Especially on a subject that it virtually unproveable, unless you have mind reading skills. I simply bounced your pointless request back to you in the same form. I said so earlier, but I'll say it again. I don't need proof to say what I think. I gave reasons for why I think it, but that doesn't imply a burden of proof on either me or you.

How do you know this was the first time a gay cake had been refused by this baker? How do you know these people lived in a vacuum, and nobody knew anything about anyone else? Many people use word of mouth and local knowledge when buying locally. That's a fact. Putting myself in their shoes, if I was gay and getting married, at that time, I would have opened with, "I'm looking for a cake for a celebration of a gay wedding, can you make me one?". And I would have added, "no problem if you can't, I'll get one elsewhere". That's how I would have gone about it, if all I wanted was a cake. If I wanted trouble, I would have gone about it the same way that they did.

OK, I am. That comes from living in the UK. I actually have a cousin living in Denver, and he hates Trump, I thought he was non-typical but apparently not. It doesn't change much though. They would have known for sure exactly what they were doing. I don't have to prove it, I'm just saying what I think. They went out of state to get married and they knew the marriage wasn't recognised in Colorado. They knew that gay marriage was being hotly debated, and the other side was staunchly Christian. If what you say is true, it would have been easy to choose a baker in Colorado who wasn't strongly Christian, so it actually makes it MORE likely that they deliberately picked out a Christian one.

You can't prove what was in their heads. But a gay couple in Colorado would have been very well aware of the current scene. To portray them as a couple of innocents expecting any and every shop in the Bible Belt to be happy baking a cake for a gay wedding is disingenuous. They would have known, or expected refusal. In Colorado. In 2012. You couldn't be an openly gay couple and be that naive at that time. While I can't prove it, I'm absolutely sure that they would have known and expected the likely outcome, and were fishing for it. I think the Rosa Park thing is different. She had already paid and been accepted, and was using what she had paid for, a seat in the coloured section of the bus. The driver wanted her to get up and give her seat to a white passenger. It's not like the shop baked the cake, sold it, and then demanded it back because a straight person wanted it. If that happened, I would of course be against that.

I would say that it's a relationship between an inertial frame and the object. And if you look at it like that, then if you accelerate the object, you add kinetic energy. And you need REAL energy to do it. And, you have added the same quantity of energy, no matter which inertial frame you were considering. So the change in state seems to be particular to the object, rather than it's relationship to a particular inertial frame. So while the absolute quantity for KE is relative, any change in KE is not.

In a way, yes. Because of the WAY that they were advocating it, with a contrived case against the baker. Basically, misusing the anti-discrimination laws against an innocent party, to further the end of legalising same-sex marriage. Which at the time, was a couple of years away, in Colorado, and three nationwide. Again yes, because if their state didn't allow gay weddings at the time, it should have been reasonable for them to decline to bake the cake. Like I said previously, gay marriage was a political issue at the time, being hotly debated and fought over. People were taking sides on the issue, especially Christians, and all that was well known. I would side with the baker (to a tiny extent) in that they didn't look for a fight, whereas the other side sought them out, and misused the discrimination laws to further that end. Really, as I made clear, I would side with no-one, but if I was forced to, I would plump for the baker, because he was picked on and used, whereas the complainers were devious and not sincere, in my opinion. If I was on the supreme court, I would rule that such refusals were legal before the law was change, but not legal now. There is a risk, if you abuse the law, that the people in power will use it as an excuse to change or abolish it. It's probably unlikely in this case, but it's not set in stone. The death penalty issue has gone backwards and forwards in law, and I doubt if it's finished yet.

They could have got a cake in Massachusetts. They knew perfectly well that at the time, same sex marriages were not legal in Colorado, so their upset and outrage seems a bit contrived. And the gay marriage question was being hotly debated at the time, so they would have been very well aware of the Christian fundy views on it. To a lot of Christians, opposing gay marriage at the time was a religious question, not a question of anti-gay discrimination. They see marriage as a religious thing, rather than a legal contract. I suppose that's why there's no prospect of churches being compelled to perform gay weddings any time soon. Having different laws in different states is a recipe for trouble. I've often wondered what happens if you have legal sex in one state, with a girl who is under age in another. Although I think the differences in age of consent are not as big as they once were.

It's not the sensors or the body that knows if something is hot or cold. It's the brain. The sensors are activated, and the brain simply get's the message "sensor activated", and it simply collates all the information, from all of the different sensors, and matches it to memories that have built up as we are growing and learning from childhood. I can remember years ago being at an ice-cream van, and a couple had a young baby, and they said "this is her first taste of ice-cream". They gave it to the baby to lick, and the little girl screwed up her face and said "hot !!!" Then, seconds later, she obviously decided she really liked it, and was kicking her legs and struggling to try to get another lick. It was funny at the time.

In that case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. That particular case does initially come across as a genuine case, rather than activists setting a trap for Christian bakers. The thing is though, the incident happened in 2012, In Colorado, same sex marriage was illegal till 2014, and then it became legal in all of the US in 2015. So it's a complicated case from that point of view. How can you compel someone to make a wedding cake for an illegal wedding? Or penalise someone for refusing, when the wedding was not permitted at the time under state law? The couple were actually married in Massachusetts a month previously, which does make you wonder why they were buying it at all. They obviously were well aware of the legal position in Colorado at the time. It's portrayed as a genuine case, but it does smack of activism. It reminds me of a recent row between my brother and sister over a tiny amount of money. Neither would back down, and it was obvious that they were winding each other up. They were both as bad as each other, and my other sister eventually stepped in and took it over. Two adults acting like children. That's families for you. This kind of thing seems pretty similar. Who would want the bloody cake, if they didn't want to bake it? If I was gay, in the Bible Belt, and getting married, I'd find someone who wanted the custom and not choose religious fundies. And how pathetic is it, to refuse to bake an innocuous cake, even if you don't agree with whatever's being celebrated? It's grown people acting like children, all the way to the supreme court.

That's postulating a sudden change of reference frame. I'm certainly not advocating that. As you said, conservation requires keeping to the same reference frame. Jumping doesn't necessitate a change of frame. In any case, I thought that in relativity, it was inertial motion that was relative, while acceleration is absolute. So when you jump, it's you that accelerates the most, and the Earth just a minescule amount. So you can't really postulate the Earth suddenly gaining enormous KE. What I was postulating was that, in any reference frame that you choose, (and stick to) accelerating expansion would at first sight mean increasing kinetic energy for nearly all of the matter in the Universe. If you take the inertial frame of reference in which the Milky Way is stationary, then all of the other galaxies are moving faster and faster away from us. That means massively increasing kinetic energy in that inertial frame, unless mass being converted to energy balanced that out. That sounds like a bigger version, of the photon being trapped between two mirrors. The system gains apparent mass while the photon is being internally reflected. Imagine an imaginary black hole that evaporates rapidly to nothing. What happens to it's kinetic energy in a frame in which it's moving? Compared to a frame in which it's stationary? (I don't know the answer, I'm musing)

If you reduce it to two solid lumps, moving away from each other, then they are losing kinetic energy as they slow under gravity, but are gaining potential energy as the distance increases. Energy is conserved if the masses stay the same. If they are accelerating away from each other, it normally requires an energy input, as they are gaining in kinetic energy and also potential energy. If they are losing mass, and accelerating, then the total mass-energy in the system, including MC2 for the mass of the bodies, could be conserved. Obviously, around the Universe, stars are losing mass, and so are black holes through evaporation via Hawking Radiation. If the Universe is finite, it's a closed system, so mass-energy must surely be conserved? So either the loss of mass is balancing the gain in velocities, or there's an external input of energy.

You really do have a weird idea of what constitutes politics. If passing a law settles the politics of something for ever, then slavery would never have been abolished. Ownership of slaves was settled law. You can't have it both ways. In reality, so long as some people disagree, it's a political question. At present, waterboarding is legal for employees of the US State, it's not torture. It's just "enhanced" interrogation. That doesn't make it "settled law", there's no such thing. Laws are subject to change, even the constitution. In reality, any legal question that doesn't have a hundred percent unanimity is a political question.

How is matter and energy conserved, with accelerating expansion? On the face of it, matter seems to be getting a free boost of kinetic energy. I can see that matter is being converted to energy in stars, would that be a candidate for the apparent increase in kinetic energy of matter as the expansion progresses? Maybe there is some other source, where matter is being converted into energy? Maybe evaporating black holes balance the equation, by reducing the mass of the black hole (and hence it's kinetic energy,) while supplying energy to the accelerating expansion process.

You are twisting the question. It's not anti-Christian. Nobody said it was. It's political. You don't have to be anti something to be political. Being pro gay marriage is a political stance, on a hotly debated subject. I think anyone should have the right to decline to take any small part in supporting a political stance that they oppose. You don't have to be Christian or even religious to oppose gay marriage rights. What if I ordered a cake with "congratulations on your abortion" on it? Christian bakers would probably refuse that too. On similar grounds. Which illustrated the point that it's not the section of society that's being refused, but the political message. You've mis-read the post. I meant taking part, against what you believe in. Not that it's a campaign against your beliefs. But I do see how you could read it like that. Yes, of course those things were political causes. To me, that's the bleeding obvious. Just because you yourself agree with something, that doesn't make it non-political. Going by your logic, the American Civil War had nothing to do with politics.

Disagree. In my example, the club would not be discriminating on the grounds of faith, but on the political message displayed. Which is the same situation as the cake. But the Christians could bring a case and argue that they were discriminated against as Christians. To me both cases would be equally flawed. To me the nub of the question is that just because you are in business, doesn't oblige you to take part in political campaigns against your beliefs. You ignored my example of baking a cake in the shape of a gun, with a pro-gun message on it. Gay marriage is a political question, and people have the right to support it, or oppose it. These cases are just abusing anti-discrimination law, to further a political cause. That's not what it's there for.

Could be plate tectonics in miniature. You might have the ground settling in chunks, rather than grains, and underground, you could have one layer sliding on another. (over a very long time span) Pure guesswork of course.

The US has a ludicrous legal system, so quoting it doesn't make it right. I've already pointed out that it's legal for a church to refuse to marry gays, even though that's a service that they provide to the public for money. As far as I'm concerned, the same laws SHOULD apply to bakers and preachers. (and they should pay the same taxes). The only response was "oh, well, the law is different for churches". So is what's right or wrong ALSO different for churches? Should gay clubs be forced to allow Christian people in, wearing Christian anti gay-marriage slogans on T shirts?