swansont

I would hope that they, too, would urge you to look at the literature I expect that this has been studied, and you could find things out if you actually looked for answers. Yeah, that’s not it.

! Moderator Note That wasn’t the issue that was presented. The question asked is “can I find out when a drive was last connected or accessed?” It’s not unreasonable to request that you stick to the topic

! Moderator Note How about we have answers addressing the question, about buying a wig, and not trying to change the topic.

If it’s not bias, what result would show bias, and why? I’m failing to see how belief in a supreme being could be associated with bias.

I wonder if his sentence will prohibit associating with other felons. That would really cut down on options; so many of his former staff have been convicted.

! Moderator Note Not a speck of astronomy or cosmology here

How is this bias?

This is about philosophy and philosophers, not science and scientists.

“When you middle-click on a Web link (or hold down Ctrl while clicking with the left mouse button), the page will be opened in a new tab.” https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tab-preferences-and-settings#:~:text=When you open a link,opened in a new tab. There’s apparently a setting, but that can be overridden by the web page

I look forward to your demonstration of this. What if there are competing views, but one wins because of demonstrated flaws in the competitors, or that the adopted view just works better?

What is B?

The upsetting thing is that you are making claims without substantiating them. Such as “Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science?” and “why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science?” Both questions assume an underlying premise that you have not shown to be true.

Rather than just posting such guesswork, one could search for actual scientific studies on the topic. We’re a science discussion site; it’s what we expect.

I think so. Most are. There would likely be a down-ballot effect if he’s not on the ballot; some republicans wouldn’t show up to vote, and thus not vote for state or local candidates. I imagine this would be appealed and SCOTUS might rule that it can’t apply to federal elections. Unlike their foot-dragging with the immunity issue, the’d probably act quickly.

Genetic does not necessarily mean inherited - mutations happen Inherited genetics can be recessive traits. There could be multiple alleles, and it could be that it’s not just one gene responsible. edit: xpost with CharonY This is an internet forum; it’s international. You might be posting from the US but others are not. As far as the first amendment is concerned, SFN is not an arm of the US government, so it does not apply. You need to follow the rules. It would behoove you to understand why

Washington state has a law about felons running for office https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/plot-twist-for-trump-wa-has-a-law-against-felons-running-for-office/

Not just TFG. We’ve seen it over and over again: politicians who aren’t “for” something (or are actively against it) until they personally experience a situation that brings the idea into focus. They lack the empathy and broadness of mind to conceive of motivations that are not ingrained in them already. Trump has just distilled it to a somewhat purer form and in a more visible way.

Line from Ken White, aka popehat “Susan Collins said it was outrageous that Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts since he clearly learned his lesson after the first one.”

! Moderator Note “I will explain why in my opinion” That’s a big NOPE, (this is not about opinion) along with our rule about not posting videos by themselves I think we’ve had enough here.

It’s not about honest belief. If the juror knew he was guilty but voted not guilty because they placed loyalty to Trump above their sworn duty as a juror, and dealing with any blowback. (Much like the modern GOP, placing duty to party above duty to country) Cruz is tacitly admitting that Trump is guilty (if that statement is accurate)

Since that’s what I was talking about, yes. Relevant? Possibly. But you did’t provide this information/context earlier (nor the Sagan quote), which is the problem.

How has he violated, or otherwise made a mockery of, the first amendment? Doesn’t matter to the MAGAts. Saying it was rigged is a trigger for the rabid response team. Rationality or factuality don’t enter into it.

How your quote addresses that is beyond me, seeing as it does not mention bias in any way. I don’t think anyone has argued that scientists are immune to bias. Certainly not the OP. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps we could get a definition of bias (or “biasness”), because I’m not seeing it. I thought bias was favoring or disfavoring a result in a way not justified by the evidence. I don’t see how e.g. studying string theory is bias, since nobody is saying it’s an actual model of anything, yet. It’s a work in progress. It’s not like it’s been shown to be wrong, and studied anyway. Funding of string theory is probably an example of bias.

So “anonymous” isn’t the key here. Then iNow’s suggestion works. Use anyone else’s phone.