mistermack

I agree. The one true brick actually exists. Your lord is just a figment.

My advice on praying is to start by talking to a brick. Experiment with all of the languages and postures that you can dream up. Then try it to music. When you are satisfied that you can't think of anything else, start talking to an imaginary, invisible brick. Give it a name, ask it for favours, learn to love it and fear it at the same time. Then force your children to worship the invisible brick, and teach them brick rituals that they can pass on to their own children. And kill anyone who disrespects the brick. Then choose leaders, wise in the ways of the brick, to tell you how to live your life, and give them lots of money. This is the path to wisdom and enlightenment.

Considering how hard it is to get life started WITH liquid water available, I think it's probably unlikely that another kind is out there. Having said that, I wouldn't say that lack of water signals necessarily means lack of life. If you look at Earth, we are probably no more than a couple of hundred years from being able to inhabit space, as in large space stations, colonies on the Moon and Mars, etc. etc. So there will be life out there, that can exist without the signs of water that we are looking for elsewhere. And in a few hundred years, there might be artificial intelligence here on Earth, able to reproduce new units in a way that blurs the distinction between machinery and life. So if that could happen here in a few hundred years, what might be out there? There could be civilizations out there millions of year in advance of us, with robots producing new robots, evolving new designs, all without any need for water based life. In fact, if you look at the arithmatic, it's highly likely. It might need water based life like us to start it off, but once you reach the stage that we are at now, the brakes could come off.

Another suggestion is to wash it in a water bath, and allow the wax to settle to the surface, and the coke and graphite to sink. Then skim off the wax.

Just a few speculative suggestions. Distillation ? Or dissolving in a solvent, followed by filtration and distillation ? Or centrifuge ? These are not informed guesses.

+1 You're the bestest relevance monitor ever.

Possibly. If it removed the compulstion for surgery in some people, it would be a good thing. At least because if you don't have the surgery, you can't regret having it. Pressure to be one or the other does probably influence the decision in some cases.

It's a type of surgery.

Me too. We should stick to the bear facts. Most people who find themselves with a sex-identity problem, as in not identifying with the sex they were designated at birth, don't want to be a third sex. They want to be one of two sexes, but not the one they find themselves lumbered with. Even my own trans friend, who admits to confusion on the issue, wavers between wanting to be male or female. Never halfway. Some days it's one, other days it's the other. I don't think he'd be impressed if you called him a third sex. (or she)

I was once part of an argument with some completely non-scientific friends, and they were constantly referring to "plastic" in the wrong way. (for me, we'd had a few drinks). So I got all superior on them, and declared, "you don't even know what plastic means!!". So they said, "go on then tell us", and I declared, "plastic is the opposite of elastic !!" They roared with laughter, and I suddenly realised how ridiculous it sounded. Technically orrect but still ridiculous. As far as the above question goes, I believe that plastic is called plastic, because it's acting as a plastic when it's heated, moulded and then cooled. It goes from liquid to plastic to elastic solid during the process. Of course the vast range of plastics means that some are much more elastic than others when cooled. Like the virtually unbreakable rulers that we used to have at school.

Even with the highest vaccine efficiency claimed in the study, (90%) that would indicate a non-vaccinated person being nine times more likely to catch covid. According to the second link, the claim was five times more likely. But currently after the Delta surge, that dropped to 66% effective, which I'm guessing means 2 to 1. If you compare that to the figure of 32 times more likely for death, then there appears to be a very big gap between infection efficiency, and death efficiency. "In a second MMWR report today, results from the ongoing HEROES-RECOVER study of COVID-19 among frontline workers showed unvaccinated workers were much more likely to become infected during the current Delta surge, but vaccine effectiveness (VE) dropped from roughly 90% to 66%." https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/cdc-unvaccinated-5-times-more-likely-get-covid-19 Two to one is better than nothing, but it's not in the same league as 32 times.

1) Solar thermal collectors to heat the water during summer. 2) Direct to radiators when hot enough, then heat pump when needed. If you could heat the water 50 deg over ambient, it would need very little electricity, even when it had cooled quite a bit. 3) For one tank feeding three houses, it could be very cost-efficient I think. To increase the volume by a factor of five, you would only need to go from a 6.7 metre cube to an 11.5 m cube. With all the economies of scale to go with it. With the promise of very low bills over fifty years or more, it could pay off.

I certainly didn't claim that. I simply responded to Swanson's claim that "reports of their effectiveness that show this very thing." Meaning preventing infection. I just asked for citation, because the reports that I read are talking about prevention of the disease, not infection. The uk graphs that I posted show that before mass vaccination, the infection and deaths graphs tracked each other rise for rise, drop for drop with deaths lagging a couple of weeks behind. Since substantial numbers got vaccinated, there is virtually no link between the two. I concluded that vaccination is far more effective against serious illness and death, than it is against transmission. The facts bear it out. The uk government calculate that the risk of death is 32 times higher, for unvaccinated people. If the same applied to transimission, then we would be on top of it now. About 50 million have had 2 jabs, and ten million have had covid. That only leaves about 17 million people available to spread it if vaccination is so effective against transmission. But lately, the people I'm hearing about who have got covid are vaccinated people. Not a scientific figure I know, but the actual figure for vaccinated people testing positive seems very hard to find. Maybe they think it would put people off having the jab. Not me though. Being 32 times more likely to die is more than enough to convince me.

Really? Since "COVID-19 is the name of the disease, not the virus, you seem to be claiming that they don't know the difference. Perhaps you should get in touch. You could point them to the first line of the wikipedia article on Covid-19 : Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Anyway, if you really thought that, I don't know why you bothered to change the quote.

I tried to do a calculation of what I suggested earlier, storing solar heated water in the summer, and chilled water in the winter, for use with a heat pump. The resulting volume of water needed to store all the heat needed for an average house came out rather bigger than I thought, a 20ft cube. (Although my maths is probably way out). That's assuming that you raise the temp of the water by 50 deg c. You would need a fair bit of land to build that, but actually a ground source heat pump needs a similar area. Dunno about the cost. It's about the size of a small swimming pool, but it wouldn't need all of the fancy finishing so it might be a lot cheaper. I think it would deifinitely be viable for two or three houses sharing one tank, because to double or treble the volume doesn't actually increase the dimensions by much. 18,000 kwh for average annual house heating one watt = 1 joule per second = 3,600 joules per hour 1 kw = 3,600,000 joules per hour 1kwhr = 3,600,000 joules 1 joule = 1/3,600,000 kwh 18,000 kwh = 18,000 x 3,600,000 joules The specific heat capacity of water is 4,200 Joules per kilogram per degree Celsius (J/kg°C). This means that it takes 4,200 J to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1°C So it takes 4,200/3,600,000 kwh for 1kg by 1°C or 0.0011666666666667 kwh. Or 1.1666666666667 kwh per metric ton Or 11.6666666667 kwh per metric ton for 10°C So 1/11.6666667 x 18,000 tons for annual house heating = 1,543 tons So needs 1,543 cu metres of water. Or 11.5m cube For 20°C 771.5 cu metres or about 9.2m cube For 50°C 308.6 cu metres or about 6.7 m cube or 20 feet approx. It's probably wrong, maths is my pet hate.

You can still buy AGAs that run on oil, gas and dual fuel, as well as electric. It's wood burners that have some restictions these days. AGAs don't burn wood or coal any more, but they make the Rayburn Range as well, and these can still burn wood and coal. The restrictions are on the sale of the fuel. "Wet wood" sales are to be restricted to larger volumes, with advice on how to dry it. Coal in bags will be banned, but loose coal still allowed.

The question under dispute was how many were infected without developing covid so your change of wording was conveniently deceptive. Nice try. In fact, the charts that I put up will have underestimated the numbers of infections, because they only publish the numbers of postive tests, and that obviously does not cover all infections, as some people would rather not be tested, and others are not sure when they have got it. The fact that you are supposed to self-isolate is enough to put many people off having a test.

It's obvious really that if you are running air conditioning in a very hot country, then a heat pump will give you some free hot water in the process. But you have to store it, as has been said. And you are getting it at a time of year that it's of least use. Even here in England, I find myself showering in water that's almost mains temperature, just to cool off in summer. That's the trouble with air source in a nutshell. It's at it's most efficient at exactly the hottest time of year. And struggles at the coldest times when you really need it most. If you could find a way to reverse that, you would be able to outspend Bill Gates.

Except that you changed the vital words when quoting. You said "got infected", they said "developed Covid". Which conveniently completely changes the meaning. Nice one !

Well really, do you not see anything rude about your post, the one I quoted and responded to? I thought I only responded in your own style. You could have queried the apparent death anomalies, without the condescending "chuckle" and I can assure you I would have explained very politely. I'll try to be more patient, I really will do my best.

Something lacking in your comprehension, if you can't see it.

Nothing wrong with that. Just as I posted ages ago, sex is binary, and gender presentation and identity are multiple.

You're easily kept amused. If you followed the subject, as I do, you would know that the UK government figures occasionally got re-assessed, and certain classes of deaths were removed from or added to the total on frequent occasions as recording criteria evolved. It's not rocket science. That is simply a faithful graph of the official UK government figures, exactly as they were issued. They are actually 7 day averages. And the total sample size is about 340 million tests, with ten million positive, and 145,000 deaths. A bit more reliable than Swansonts out-of-date sample of about 4,000 non-representative health workers.

So you claim, but I see no evidence. In the UK, the link between the infection graph, and the death graph, was broken when mass vaccination took hold. Clear evidence that the vaccine was acting against symptoms, far more effectively than against infection. Here are charts of UK cases, and UK deaths, right up to date today. You can clearly see that the vaccines are acting far more successfully against symptoms (deaths) than actual cases (positive tests).

Citation needed. Not that I can prove otherwise, but whenever I read reports of effectiveness, they have been carefully qualified by saying "symptomatic" infection, and there is no dispute about that, the vaccines are very effective at prevention and reduction of that. But symptomatic infection doesn't tell the whole story, with this virus and it's variants. My niece was one of the first in our family to have it, and she only found out that she had had it later, after being tested for a hospital operation. And she had not been vaccinated at all due to health issues. She had not had any symptoms at all.