StringJunky

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get to see a mushroom or two.

Why can't it be genuine and ignorantly biased, in a naive way?

He's young and he has been subliminally 'educated' that way, like a lot of people.

I was thinking about World War 3.

You are not understanding what I said. That post was nothing about the veracity of the claims. It was about the motivation by the Democrats.

I think in the event of a national emergency one would want it from the horse's mouth.

He has lost a lot of people a lot of money. He is financially amoral.

What do you mean?

Yes, the position itself is supposed to be non-partisan, but this process is wholly political and he''s responding in a like manner. This has got bugger all to to with the spirit of justice and everything to do with each getting their political side into a position of influence. I'm beginning to think Trump is good for America because he's bringing out its true motivations. Neither side is looking good.

His remarks are true, it is plain to see. It's a wholly Democratic attempt at assassinating his candidacy, by whatever means. Who else is he going to point the finger at?

Yes, the roots of these tests is sound, it's that they are often now misapplied to the wrong demographic.

IQ tests were developed for finding the limits of people with a serious cognitive deficiency to see what help they needed; it was not for measuring intelligent people. IQ tests in other scenarios just tells you who's good at IQ tests.

Best to stick to "one".

However this pans out, a staunch conservative is going to sit on the SCOTUS.

Your English is understandable.

You just need sufficient area of solar panel to provide enough power to your bulb. You need to think about other requirements like controlling temperature, supplying air etc. The first thing you need to think of is: what is it you are testing for, or, what is the point of the experiment? What are you trying to show or find?

Dictet - 1957

No evidence has been presented, thus far, in this enquiry; the current credibility of the accuser and accused is about the same.

But it's not objective evidence.

As long as that person was not involved. A person saying they were attacked is testimony, not evidence. Evidence needs to have some sort of objectivity and separation from the persons involved.

Do you see what you did there? You misreported but you did show quote. It's conditional but you presented it as absolute.

Which will be adapted to that environment. It will likely be relatively rudimentary in what they can detect and the frequency range they can detect in. No doubt there are exceptions. Some organisms are luminescent, so some will be adapted to see that.

It's not a stupid question. Making colour pigments takes energy (food, which will be scarce in the dark depths) and there is no evolutionary reason, like protecting from harmful light rays, hiding, etc for the fish to evolve to be coloured. To put it simply: deep sea organisms generally aren't going to make something they don't need to survive or reproduce, especially when food is hard to find.

Say"Hi" to God for me.

Yes, "Popular". My tastes were/are more niche (not popular in the mainstream sense) but I do like some rap with respect to the rhythm and flow.