StringJunky

What''s the chance of DT admitting it? When I wrote this OP, I started from the premise of it being the 'US vs China' but, given that his a fair few of his own advisers and other US experts think it's a bad idea, I altered it because it's actually a Trump vs China spat, as much of the current issues are instigated by him.

Who will buckle first and suffer the most out of the US and China? I think Trump is on a losing wicket on this one.

How do you think this will develop and what will be the outcome?

If want to get up to the the top, or advance, you have to behave like those higher up. It's called 'The Brown Nose Hypothesis'.

i don't watch TV or films any more but I would like to know the general storyline to see if it might interest me.

It appears that this subject is called 'metamerism'.

What are you think about this sir ? I also want to learn your ideas

Grey is a tone, not a colour. It represents reflectance not hue. In hue terms, white through to black are neutral.

This. OS's slowly become decrepit over time. I imaged a clean OS and just use that now.

I personally don't look in that box at all.

Wouldn't it be better to create a new content stream with all the new postings in the forums you want to see as they occur? When you've done that you can bookmark the link to that page.

Yeah, you can't beat a nice coating of acrylamide... yum yum.

Truth is a human construct; it's what we make of things or what they mean to us.

I bet mordred would disagree somewhere.

A dyslexic man walked into a bra.

If you can measure something it is what can be called 'physical'. You could categorize reality in two forms: objective reality, where things are the way they are, independent of how we personally perceive them and subjective reality, which is taking the approach or having a perception that makes the most sense to us... what most people call 'commonsense'. The latter category is not much use in science because results will vary with each different observer. This is why scientists came up with the scientific method; to ensure that any results can repeated by anybody under the same conditions. This approach is the closest we will get to describing the world around us in a form that is as independent from our individual limitations and biases as possible.

There would be nothing left because volume is a property of things, not an entity unto itself.

It's probably the worst one I've come across. I think it's pants...that and the trampoline

That's been the way in everything I've ever read on it and has been the bane of my proper understanding of it. You bringing it up has made me think i ought to try again from another angle. Is there any literature that tackles it differently?

But it's terminal.

Apart from what micro-oganisms are encapsulated in the soap that are washed away, assuming no antibactericide in it, they stay put on your skin and carry on doing what they do... protecting you. Plain water can't remove oils very well and soap has a detergent action to emulsify them. Washing with soap will temporarily reduce the population of the normal skin flora (bacteria and other little critters) but not eradicate them... you wouldn't want to. If you could eradicate them all, then you have lost your physical barrier that keeps out the pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms and will give them an opportunity to wreak havoc on your body. The organisms that normally inhabit our body are as essential to our well-being as we are to them.

With the amount of chip shop chips (fries) fried in animal fat (lard) I've consumed in my life, I should be riddled with cancer....if you are what you eat, acrylamide is me.

I would say yes but when you consider there is only 1/400th of a carcinogenic dose in a cup, having it how you like it anyway, the potential benefit is negligible to the point of stupid. This coffee thing is just the latest in a long line of unfounded scare stories. I would say nearly everything we eat has some dangerous substances in it but they need to be at the right dose. You also need to dig into the research to see what dosages were applied to the test subjects to observe the effect and are they realistic in how much a person would be exposed in real terms. You can do a quick checkup on a substance by looking up its Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or SDS. That will give you the hazards associated with a substance. Here's its MSDS: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927422 The other thing you can look up is the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) - the dose that will kill 50% of test subjects. For acrylamide: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp203-c3.pdf . Note this for the pure substance. Looking up these two areas you can get a ballpark idea of the relative toxicity of a substance.

You have to look into the motives of the pro-gun lobby. To them, the problem is that there are bad people out there and the solution is to throw more guns at the problem. If you throw more guns at the problem, they get more money from the arms makers who finance them. More guns = more money. Less guns = less money and power.

That struck me too. Edit: Contrary to commonsense, coffee beans lighten with longer roasting times. A 'light' roast has been roasted longer: it pertains to the final colour. "Today I learned...."