StringJunky

Correction: we were invaded and those languages were forced on us, one way or another.

Yes.

Ethics - The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture. Morals - Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong. https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals Your source just conflates the two. We don''t have 'committees of morals', we have 'ethics committees'... do we not?

Yes but your moral compass may diverge from that. Ethics are a matter of consensus whereas morals are personal.

Ethics is what society says is right or wrong, and morals are what you think is right or wrong.

It looks more like someone trying very hard to sound clever...

i wouldn''t have thought it would be wise to go below periscope depth and have to use the batteries for propulsion and energy needs when water shorted a battery earlier.

if I do it online I have an emailed payment card receipt, paypal receipt (usually) and site receipt; 3 records.

That's how I see it. The boat lost its buoyancy control and the hull then failed somewhere around its absolute maximum depth limit.

I always thought the jargon was necessary in papers to to keep them as physically compact as possible. I would imagine, in general, any particular novel research is too specialized for the lay reader anyway, so converting it into everyman language is a waste.

The problem is that the collective societal memory of the scourge that these diseases were is slowly being forgotten. Not many people have direct memories of the problems and extent of these diseases. To many .people below a certain age, the purpose of vaccines is just an abstract concept for which one can choose to have or not with minimal consequences. The vaccination programs have become victims of their own success. I am reminded of the saying "Lest we forget"... history will repeat itself.

Very nice. Yes, sometimes you just have to slow down your mind enough and look more intently to do the job properly. Precision and haste make poor bedfellows.

There's no shortcuts. Live healthy, don't take risks and hope you''ve got the genetics to support that length of life.

Here I am.

"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable." - Wiki "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities . Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist." - Wiki My distinction seems ok to me. Atheism is a positive action of disbelief. However you quantify Agnosticism by 'less or more', it is defined by or contains doubt inherent in its definition.

OK.

This is semantic really, but to say "I don't believe"' shows a commitment to a pov, whereas saying "I don't know" is an agnostic approach that is non-committal.

For the scientifically-minded, I resurrect this post by cantankerous, but sharply clever DrRocket:

Strictly speaking, one should never totally close ones mind to such ideas. One should say "The probability is infinitesimal but not zero".

Pink.

Agnosticism would be the pure scientist's view, I think, because it is the view that matters of religion are presently unknowable but one is not committing oneself to shutting the door on it. To do so would assign a belief that a deity does not exist.

We are a bastard nation with many fathers, so it's not surprising our language is somewhat ad hoc.

I can almost taste one in my mouth now. I used to crunch a whole packet in no time.

Yeah, I think it was sea temperature rise.

I can't see how you can do that without physically damaging the fish because the mercury is locked up in each cell.