StringJunky

This is a false premise ...homosexuality is likely beneficial to the survival of a species, as a whole, because it increases the potential available assistance for any other offspring thus increasing their chances of survival i.e the ratio of carers/providers/protectors to offspring is increased.

You could try hot glue and melt a bit in a spoon with a lighter. It's not an expensive experiment.

How about finding a bolt that needs a star key or other unusual driver to remove the seat that a potential thief is not likely to have?

Then have you have never been in the Total Perspective Vortex

In something like astrophotography using the self-timer to avoid vibration will suffice I would think.

It would be highly irresponsible for unqualified people to offer opinions on potential medical problems and closing the thread was the right thing to do.

"The constant speed results from the equations" answers the OP better than "experiments confirm the notion is correct" since the question is about why and not whether it has been confirmed.

I am sure the founders had this in mind ..not for every Tom,Dick and Harry to do as they wish without care for consequences. In every well-thought out law there is some caveat or proviso and the "well-regulated" mention is just that imo.

Random mandatory firearms inspection visits would keep people on their toes. I think the UK police can do this. .

Are you thinking they might recognise picture content? That's an angle I hadn't thought of.

I don't know about modern digital photographic paper but the old darkroom sort had the light-reactive pigments suspended in gelatin which is an animal product extracted from bones.

In the UK, the people responsible for nature reserves - which are supposed to be sanctuaries for native species - have their hands tied by ever-restricting European laws on what herbicides they can use when faced with an invasive foreign plant. New Zealand Pygmy Stonecrop is a serious concern at a reserve near me yet they have only one aquatic herbicide option and it doesn't work. The ones that might work are banned. This is an example of a negative side-effect of government policy, aimed at environmental responsibility, working against responsible control in other areas. The solution here I think is extremely strict rules on who is allowed to use otherwise banned chemicals and where. The absolute worse thing anyone can do is attempt to remove plants in an ignorant manner because it might cause increased propagation. Every little bit of the plant left behind could be a new individual plant - this is the case with Stonecrop. Weed Warriors are really not a good idea. From a more objective frame, I think the transmission of species' genes across the globe by humans, for good or bad, is all part of the evolutionary process when looking at the big picture.

Since IE10 I've found IE to be quite the PITA and coupled with the intermittent but persistent quirks with the current forum software I've given up on it.

I would think if you are locked out you can't access the site to log out.

I would imagine this extends to items with original copyrighted images as well. If the images are your own creation, as long as they are not exact copies of trademarks, logos or said copyright images you are probably in safer water.

A similar but more appropriate saying for here would be: You can give a man a book but you can't make him think. Whoever minused me I was only showing Michel an alternative expression ...it was not aimed at the conversation in general.

No it doesn't for me either.

Collectively subjective within any given culture yes.

The idea of whether something is just is an arbitrary one dependent on the moral system within a population. If a particular concept has the consensus of the majority it can be said to be just.

One could be religious but not submit to a prescribed religion, along with its incumbent diktats, thus allowing open acceptance of scientific ideas with no conflicts. God could have assigned specific properties to the most fundamental units of the universe and let chance, mixed in with the determinism inherent in the properties of the fundamental elements, do the rest. Your suggestion assumes God wants to meddle in the machinations of his creation at a later date when that may not be his intent at all ...that would be a possible non sequitur as an argument against it.

The abstract is about solar heat loads and says there is no difference in heat absorption not UV absorption, where white hair and feathers is inferior.

Can you watch BBC News in America? That might be a viable alternative. Here's the US/ Canada website ...see what you think. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/us_and_canada/

I think you misinterpreted CharonY. It was an answer posed in the form of a question, rather than a direct statement. It leaves open an element of doubt. StringJunky: What is my name? Fresh: StringJunky?