StringJunky

I'm sure they will find a place for you to reflect until you remember.

In China, they ask to see the contents of your phone and you will comply.

Yes, that's the sort of thing I read.

I think the solar wind/sunlight is constantly reacting with the Moon's surface forming gases and then leaking them to outer space. I've forgotten where the article is now.

It'll be placebo. It generally has 94+% removed. I quit normal caffeine levels, swapping to decaf tea and coffee and the headaches were really rather painful. I had to stick a caffeinated tea in here and there over a week or two to soften the withdrawal.

Would you say suction is a pseudo-force like centrifugal force?

Is Semitic different from Jewish?

Part of the solution is to reduce your identity footprint as much as possible, so that you are not served tailored ads or particular information in general. They serve you what they think you want to see according to your profile. If you want information al a carte you need to work on this and that means seeing what you would consider 'chaff' as well.

We expect nothing less from him; that's what makes a good scientist. The devil is in the details and language has to be precise. It is a PITA though when they can't just fluff the gaps and see the brilliance dying to shine out.

I've just learned that anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic are not the same idea. There are, apparently, ultra-Orthodox Jews that are anti-Zionist. It's certainly a complicated and nuanced situation. I would have thought these guys were the ones most pro-Israel; I learn something everyday https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160928

That analysis says it conforms, so I would have thought it's ok. You have to look at these results in the context that modern analytical methods are very sensitive and most products are contaminated with just about everything if you look hard enough and with the right techniques. I bet they could find PCB's, dimethyl mercury, uranium, plutonium etc... will that stop you just because they are present, but actually in effectual amounts?

Well, what did you mean?

Your post seemed to imply that what we call 'life' can cohabit with another fundamentally different life form, which doesn't seem to be the case.

But there's only one kind of dominant life on Earth; DNA life and a precursor of that in RNA.

I think what it means is that DNA won out amongst probably several molecular candidates. Chemically, there's probably no room for enduring cohabitation of different life forms in the same closed environment, and, hence, no other forms exist today. That implies that the probability for the creation of life is high.

it has no atmosphere that is retained. Pressure is pretty much the same as interstellar space. On earth, it would be called a vacuum if you created that here. There's only about a million molecules per cubic metre.

I read a few days ago, the US border force stopped a load of drugs on the Mexican border and in there was 12Kg of Fentanyl. A therapeutic dose is 50 micrograms.

I think, If they are curious in that way, try and show them and let them experience the danger in a safe, controlled way, so they get a real sense of things like 'hurts', 'sharp', 'hot' etc. Like when they start to walk they want to run too soon. Tell them they'll fall over and hurt themselves... and they do. Let them touch the the side of your hot coffee cup to let them experience 'hot'. They'll learn about electricity if they ever go on a trampoline and get a shock when they step off! All these mundane things to us adults are fresh, new, meaningful experiences for a two year old and up. Forbidding children from things only strengthens their desire to do it... such is curiosity. Better to let them do it, within reason, under controlled circumstances, or something similar, so they know what you mean. Eventually, they'll take your word for it, but to start, they they need to have a visceral sense of certain basic concepts like 'danger' and that can only be learned by first hand experience. Trust has to be earned, it is not given. Corporal punishment, however mild, just causes a person to withdraw or react with the same.

They need to be constructively occupied. If they are doing something destructive, divert their attention to something that is interesting to them but constructive. A destructive child is generally a bored child. I think at that age you've got to guide them in their activities quite a bit. I don't think it's reasonable, at that age, to expect them to play peacefully on their own for long... they've got the attention span of a gnat. For that reason, disciplinary measures, being stern are a bit fruitless. They've still got a lot of 'baby' in them and need pretty much constant, proactive attention to keep them stimulated positively. Between 18 months and 3 years is probably the most demanding and testing time. The strongest measure I would use is to have a place for them to 'time out' where you are still in sight or just in the next room. A few minutes on the 'naughty step' or 'naughty chair' might be useful. "When you''ve calmed down, you can come in here again"... or something like that. Be calmly consistent. They like routine and predictability. Never show bad temper. All stuff you don't want to hear.

We used to be able to see both red and green ones but now we just see the total after adding them up.

If you see nothing on a reaction, someone could have negged you, then another immediately reversed it, leaving it at '0'. Try cleaning your browser of cookies and cache for other niggles. There is a time limit on edits; probably 10 or 15 minutes.

Spoken like a good Christian, Catholic, whatever...

Why don't you join a forum where that kind of comment is expected and welcomed?

He's already got a thread on this.