Area54

What do you understand to be Tesla's means of invention? How did you arrive at this understanding?

I don't understand the question. To apply scientific principles to develop a solution to a problem that can then be patented surely requires being creative. What does "simply being creative" mean?

You may think it should be incorrect, but the evidence clearly shows otherwise. "It cannot be generalised". That is precisely what is noted in the link I provided. I chose the 80 hours as an example. I'm sorry that was not clear. My point was a simple one. You apparently doubted the possibility that drugs might induce hallucinations. I noted that drugs were not necessary. Simply go without sleep for an extended period. Now, apparently, you have doubts about that also. I would point out that I do not offer any medical advice or clinical methods, other than - "don't deliberately deprive yourself of sleep".

Drugs are not necessary. Try remaining awake for 80 hours and I shall be surprised if you do not hallucinate. See this, for example. Warning: remaining awake for 80 hours can be (seriously) damaging to your health.

I don't think he was aiming for nice.

For the life that we know, DNA.

I understand that many married people can experience this at home.

I don't understand you. Science does not rely upon what we know presently. As Zapatos has noted we rely upon the findings of science and their application in technology because they are proven, at least to a greater extent than untried and untested ideas. However, Science - the scientific method - continually revisits data and hypotheses and theories, probing and questioning them, doubting the current findings. Building on them and advancing our knowledge, certainly, but relying to them only to the extent that they are continually tested. Whose knowledge should he rely on then? God's? If so, which God? There are several thousands to choose from. Now I readily concede that Christianity, for example, may offer some sound knowledge in regard to moral issues (though I shake my head in sadness and oftimes disgust at some of the misinterpretations made by some denominations), but the Bible offers very little of value on aerodynamics, chemical processing, or solid state circuitry. Again, I don't understand what you mean by this. Science is limited to the extent that its methodology has an area of application and using it ouside that area will not provide answers. So? If you mean that inventions are ethically neutral and it requires human judgement to decide whether it is good to employ them at all, and if so, how they should be employed, then I suspect everyone here would agree. So?

On the plus side, Johann Sebastian Bach wrote some great music. (It's my way of saying 'we'll always have Paris'.)

Perhaps the other planets don't have Donald Trump. Now as to the report. I found some of the assumptions rather flaky. Perhaps this is down to the inadequacies of popular rendings and would be properly addressed in the original research. With that caveat consider these issues - extracts from the article are in italics: "Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, but the researchers argue that the sweet spot for life is a planet that is between 5 billion to 8 billion years old." This runs counter to the probable extinction of all life on Earth, due to increases of solar output, in from 1 to 2 billion years time, right in the middle of the researchers sweet spot. "A slightly overall warmer temperature, a mean surface temperature of about 5 degrees Celsius (or about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) greater than Earth, together with the additional moisture, would be also better for life." This ignores the obvious point that temperatures vary over the lifetime of a planet, both because of gradual increases in stellar output, but also changes in atmosphere, ocean and land. "A planet that is 10% larger than the Earth should have more habitable land." A significant determinant of the continental mass is likely the outcome of the posited moon-creating impact. The researchers appear to have ignored that.

Perhaps not. Probably, as you say nobody deserves Covid-19. Unfortunately viruses don't have a moral compass. And, if anyone does deserve to be afflicted by the virus then it is anyone who flagrantly dismisses how serious it is, fails to follow the simple guidelines for minimising risk, promotes "cures" that place lives at risk and mocks those who do take precautions. I hope Trump makes a full recovery, but I will continue to resent and condemn the selfish, ignorant approach he has taken to this calamity.

As the initiator of this thread I would note that at least the contributions of @Charles 3781 , in their deflection from the topic, disregard of sound medical advice, defence of the indefensible, and promotion of dangerous and deadly solutions, mirrors what we can continue to expect from Trump. So in that sense he provides an ongoing reminder of the thread's protagonist.

You are completely wrong. For example I have scores of research papers on my computer downloaded free and legally from the internet. I am free to use these for personal study, but I cannot use any of the text without providing full details of the source and even then I would be limited as to how many words I could use. I am not trying to get at you Atom, I am trying to help you avoid problems in future. It is highly unlikely that the holders of the copyright for the material you have posted would take legal action against you, but they could. That puts you at risk, it puts the forum at risk and it is simply discourteous.

It is irrelevant that the information is free. Failing to make clear that the words are not your own is both an infringment of copyright and an example of plagiarism. Your good intent does not cancel out these points.

The above is in defence of your statement, "Don't forget most religion is psychological abuse." I don't see even a smidgeon of evidence or argument to justify the the most in your statement. Likewise. I acquired many of my moral values from my religious upbringing. I have discarded the theistic belief, but still find reflection in a quite church, reading a Bible passage, or listening to the Hallelujah Chorus evoke positive feelings that are completely untouched by any taint of psychological abuse. I recgonise that not all others are so fortunate. Joigus seems to wish to use a "one size fits all" version of religion and chooses the most damaging of possible images.

You need to make it clear which words are yours and which are lifted from the New Yorker article. Otherwise you will be suspected of plagiarism. Also, you might wish to make clear in what way - if any - the article supports your view. (It wouldn't do any harm to clarify what your view is too; to this reader it comes across as gibberish.)

It occurs to me that a simplistic interpretation of the state of the USA today is that the American Civil War never really finished properly. One hopes that in this context "simplistic" equates to "silly and irrelevant and wrong".

Here you go - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8 There is 2:55 of lead in that is worth watching of itself.

But that would require a breach of social distancing.

This is something that we can, perhaps, all agree on. As I suggested earlier you need to revisit your presentation from the ground up. Or, alternatively, consider growing dahlias. If you opt for the latter, post photos.

There were too many non sequitur's in your argument for me to take the time to follow it to the end. You may wish to revisit the presentation with a closer attention to logic.

Your outline scenario is, seemingly, inadequately clothed. @OldChemE and @md65536 have offered plausible explanations. I note that your outline is consistent with the following account: You set up both sets of pieces, but the play was conducted by two players known only as white and black. White won. Other satisfactory explanations are possible. You can reject the above explanation only on the basis of nice interpretations of your lexicology and grammar that you have (deliberately?) made ambiguous. Who won the game? Who was black and who was white? Who lost? . . . . . Who cares? I'll tell you what Area54 stands for if you promise never to tell me what MSC stands for.

I'm generally anti-conspiracy theory, but my first reaction when I heard of Trump's positive test was "That's an effective way of avoiding another Presidential debate". In the more likely scenario where he shrugs it off with minor syptoms, if he were to use the " I told you this thing was no worse than flu" he'll get very little sympathy from those who have lost family or friends.

Of course! I forgot the electoral college need not be a simple rubber stamp. Very useful. Thank you both. Intellectually I recognise that such would be a proper position, but if ever there was a case for an exception this could be it.

Given the news of Trump's "Covid Catch": What do you suppose would be the likely impact upon the election result? If the condition were to prove fatal for him before the election how would that be handled? Can the Republicans select another candidate? Would Pence automatically step-up? How would ballot papers be handled? Same questions post-election if he won the election. Any other thoughts?