mistermack

But when I'm talking about population levels and targets etc I'm not discussing killing people to reduce the total, I'm talking about measures to reduce birth rates. When you put it like "trading a human life for one" you are mis-representing the entire argument, or talking about something entirely different. But if you want to go to that extreme, then killing 9,000 innocent Palestinians is ok by the governments of the world, in order to kill a few Hamas fighters. Human life isn't so precious to the people we elect, when it comes to tribal matters. Or in the US, human life isn't sacred enough to necessitate a free health service. Rich human lives are more important than poor ones. And for people convicted of a capital crime, their lives don't count at all, even though there's a very real possibility that they are innocent.

Given the history of batteries on submarines, it's amazing that something like this could still happen. A modern design should surely recognise the risk, and put the batteries behind a bulkhead, with airtight doors in and out? And an electronic air quality detector, to be checked before entry? On a boat of that sort of cost and sophistication, you would expect that sort of thing at the minimum.

Homophobia isn't a real phobia. It's not generally an irrational fear, although that might be the case in some instances. It's mostly contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and may sometimes be related to religious beliefs, according to wiki. Those emotions may be naturally inherited traits, or instincts, but they aren't rational. But much of what we do isn't rational.

That's an interesting thought, but I don't think so. If you wanted maximum power, you would probably use direct power from generators, rather than the much weaker battery power. Maybe getting caught up flipped the sub upside down, causing acid leak.

I'm pretty sure that the generators would directly drive the motor, not via the batteries. Batteries don't last long if you keep charging and discharging. They would be just for emergency power, I would say. Maybe the section got flooded, and seawater got into the batteries. During the world wars, submarine poisonings were common when leaks happened, often from depth charge damage. But without checking, I seem to remember that it was chlorine gas that they dreaded back in those days. Maybe from the salt in sea-water, or maybe the batteries used hydrochloric acid. It seems a big coincidence that the sub got tangled at the same time as a gas leak. Maybe the crew died, and the sub just kept on trucking till it hit something.

Hopefully, in 100 years time, people will be wondering what the hell people were doing in 2019, eating wild bats.

So long as it's reasonably like the illustration, I think it would be easy to maintain balance by moving the feet forwards or back, which would tend to tip it back or forwards. And the tail would be good for more fine tuning.

The position of the hip ball and socket is a lot further forward than it looks with the flesh on. The weight will go through that joint, so that's the balance point. It looks more balanced, if you view the hip joint as the balance point.

I would say that I agree that most depictions of T Rex do look front-end-heavy. But I think that maybe that comes from the fact that most of the tail was muscle, not bone, so the fossils might give a misleading impression of how bulky the tail actually was. Also, the lungs were hollow, so that part looks heavier than it was. Here's a lizard running on two legs. The tail is not very bulky, and he's fairly upright, with the tail stretched out. Maybe T Rex did the same, or maybe it had a bulkier tail. I would opt for the latter.

I think that idea is a non-starter. Wading about on two feet in water is extremely cumbersome for a big animal. Birds can do it, but they are small, lightweight and have wings to balance with. A water living dinosaur would have evolved bigger feet and a flattened tail for propulsion, as in crocodiles. There's been plenty of work done on T Rex locomotion, and the balance has never been an issue. The latest analytical work seem to suggest that the held the body more horizontally than earlier thought, and the tail was stretched out horizontally behind for balance.

Well, I was claiming that the longer you are fed a message, the more indoctrinated you become. If it didn't work, they wouldn't do it. But it's a numbers game, it's not going to work on everyone, but enough people soak it up to make it worthwhile. I'm sure we are. It varies from country to country. Here in the UK we are fed a slightly subtle diet of indoctrination. The number one message is that Monarchy = Good. This is in spite of the rapid fall in popularity, every media outlet is fully on message, constantly feeding us the line of how indispensable the royals are, how hard-working etc. etc. And the second big message is that multiculturalism = good. Virtually every commercial on tv presents a beautiful and happy and successful mixed-race couple, even though the actual incidence of mixed race couples is very very low. Also, news programs and drama seem to have an obligatory stock of multi-ethnic representation, with a good dose of women and disabled stirred in for good measure. I don't mind the actual message, I just object to being force-fed it. In the current political situation in this country, it's getting harder and harder to voice a criticism of Israel. There has been for at least the last ten years a concentrated program of portraying anti Israel sentiment as anti-semitism. It's not accidental. It goes on behind the scenes. They've been so successful, that they've pretty much convinced the public that the Labour Party is anti-semitic , even though it's members are only expressing anti-zionist views. I don't know who is pulling the strings behind the scenes, but over time, they get what they want, and they didn't have to stand for election to do it.

Well I'm making no pretence of knowing about virtual particles. Reading wikipedia is generally a reliable source, but not infallible. On the wiki page on virtual particles, the first sentence reads " A virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle." And later this : "The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists." If a virtual graviton can exist for a billion years and affect an object a billion light years away, then going by the second sentence, it would appear that there must be very little difference between virtual and real.

As I always say to Americans, you don't need to be able to spell humour to appreciate it. 😄

They can try, but your spoilt western dogs are too fat and slow to keep up.

I don't need to, I wash my feet every month.

Ah right. We call those tea towels in Gloucester. 'Dishcloths' is reserved for the wet washing-up cloths. I know lots of people will dry dishes with a tea towel, rather than letting them drain dry, but I've never seen the point, unless you have a too-big pile of wet washing up and need the space. If a few bacteria is a worry, then the used tea towel is the less hygienic option. But I'm sure it's not that critical. You need a certain dose of bacteria to make you ill, and I'm sure you'll never get that from a plate that looks reasonably clean. And cooking pots and pans are even less critical, as you will generally be heating them up and killing any bacteria that are lurking on the surface.

When I posted the OP, I thought I was probably asking a silly question, but going by the answers, I can see why I was in the dark. If you look at the wikipedia page on the graviton, which I had already done, the word "virtual" doesn't even appear, except in a link, in the "see also" section at the bottom of the page. See Graviton - Wikipedia The first sentence reads " In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction." This appears to be totally at odds with the post from Janus, above, which makes the clear distinction between virtual gravitons and gravitons. If you replace "graviton" with "virtual graviton" and replace "elementary particle" with "virtual elementary particle" in the wikipedia page, then it begins to make more sense. So I'm of the opinion at the moment, that the wikipedia page is wrong and needs re-writing. One other question that occurred to me is how virtual gravitons comply with the description of virtual particles being transient and short-lived. Presumably virtual gravitons are acting on bodies that are millions or even billions of light-years distant, so they must exist for millions and billions of years to achieve that.

I don't get the logic behind this sort of advice. I never change the old rags I use to wash dishes, nor do I wash them. If you wash dishes and then rinse them with clean water, and leave them to drain dry, how do bugs on the washing cloth matter? In any case, the human body is equipped to cope with small numbers of bacteria etc. It's when they are allowed to multiply that they begin to become a threat. You need a certain amount of encounters with bacteria to keep your immune system ticking over. If you are immune compromised, it might be more important to avoid small amounts of bacteria. I like a wooden chopping board. For some reason it's much more satisfying using wood than plastic etc, even though I have both kinds. I think the wood is easier on the knife blade, especially softwood.

That is so passé. History almost always repeats itself, but not quite.

My method for making sodium is fairly basic. I concentrate a nebula from exploded stars into a distinct cloud, and let it collapse under it's own gravity, into a star many times the size of the Sun. I let that burn itself out, till it collapses in a huge supernova, fusing some of the heavier ingredients into heavier metals. You're welcome. The Almighty.

In general, the objective is a decent crust, with an inside that is baked but not dry. Smaller things like bread rolls benefit from a hot oven, that will brown off the crust before the inside starts to dry. Bigger loaves want lower temperatures, and longer times, so that the heat has time to penetrate, without burning the crust. You could achieve that by starting from cold, but it's unpredictable, as ovens will vary as how quick they reach full temperature, so what works for the recipe writer might work for your oven. So I would prefer heating the oven up before putting the bread in. That way you can learn from how it goes and adjust the heat settings accordingly. My favourite bake is french baguette mix, rolled in a mix of flax seeds and sesame seeds. I make the dough in the bread machine, and take it out before it starts to bake. Then roll out the sticks, cover and allow to rise. Then heat the oven to 200 deg fan oven, with a tray of boiling water on the floor, and put the sticks in and bake till they are a bit darker than golden. Yummy, but addictive.

That is so passe. As if history repeats itself.

True. Insects can be nasty as well as tasty though. But with flowers, there might be some connection to food, in the colouring, but I think it's more to do with form and healthiness. Flowers only have to shrivel a little bit, to lose their beauty. Maybe it's an illusion of youth. We generally find youth attractive, at least when it resembles human youth in some way. Flowers petals look youthful, like a baby's skin. Smooth in texture and colour. It's a young healthy look. Hyenas are ugly, but their cubs are very cute. Mind you, what some people find beautiful is a complete mystery to me. Squat nosed dogs for instance. Or Picasso's silly daubs.

Our ancestors would have eaten flowers, just as monkeys and apes do, as part of their diet. What we like about flowers is generally their freshness and health. We don't find old shrivelled flowers beautiful, even though they are part of the life cycle, and generally producing seeds that could be edible. The psychology of beauty is evolutionary. We admire forms that look fit and healthy and athletic, which is probably part of our reproductive instincts. Young fit-looking bodies are attractive, even if we aren't sexually attracted. Hence, we find a leopard beautiful, and a hyena ugly, because the body types resemble youth and fitness, (in the case of the leopard) and age and over-weight (in the case of the hyena). Even though it might be a young fit hyena, and an old decrepit leopard. We mentally transform the body form to what it would mean on a human. Flowers generally look fresh and healthy, when they have just emerged. We don't want flowers that have gone past freshness, even though the colours might be the same. It might just be a general attraction to health, or it might also be a hangover from when the flowers were on the menu.

Oh right. Derris dust was the only brand name I could remember, and with the initials DD I thought it was DDT. I can remember reading DDT on the list of ingredients of something dad was using, but obviously it wasn't that then. Unless they added it to Derris Dust as well. I just looked up Derris Dust and you can still buy it in Australia. The price is a shocker though, about seventy five Aus dollars for a shaker. I'd rather keep the caterpillars.