Sayonara

You are both complicating the issue. War is brought about by absolutely and inevitably unavoidable selective pressures, both in intra~ and interspecific interactions between populations. Gender is pretty much irrelevant. And why would you hope people with any particular gene are gay? It's not like gay people don't ever pass on their genes (although this is a matter for another thread entirely, of which there are several. Just thought it was a curious thing to say).

They don't. The problem I see with energy shields is that - although we could theorise ways of building a defense against one kind of attack, sheilds would be useless unless they were able to repel all the most common forms of attack that were expected. E.g. if you have a shield that can reflect high power lasers, and I come back with a projectile weapon, you're defenceless. It would probably be a better use of time and energy to devise better evasive strategies, smart decoys etc.

"Fruit" (unless you can be more specific, as there are different kinds of fruit), and "yes".

Seeing as Mokele made it very clear when the whole argument began that he was describing a vestigial tail, and not a vestigial organ, I guess you must be referring to yourself. I don't see Mokele discussing tonsils being vestigial anywhere either, so demanding that he explain why a probably non-vestigial structure is vestigial is looking like a straw man. I think the best thing you can do with this argument is walk away from it tbh.

Sounds like a problem with facing reality to me. I know you asked us to assume that these aren't false claims, but I am intrigued as to how someone would go about proving this had happened to them.

Please remember this is a General Sciences thread, and not a General Discussion thread. Read: no rubbish.

This topic has been done over and over - please search for related threads.

And war in animal species?

Calling the BBC capitalist is the kiss of death to that argument.

Artorius is simply bitter because some of his less well-formed posts have drawn criticism. Don't let him put you off posting.

I present Exhibit A: Overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which is in the form of the many many discussions and debates I have taken part in on this site over the years. I think you'll find that's untrue. Refer back to Exhibit A. In the first place, I - like anyone else engaged in voluntarily solicited peer review - will ask for the principles and reasoning behind any new idea. There is actually a method to science you know, hence the term "scientific method". If an idea cannot be demonstrated from first principles, it must be able to stand on its own merit. If it can't, then it can be expected to draw criticisms. This is hardly revolutionary thinking. As a member of staff it is within my remit to ask leading questions when people post badly-phrased ideas. Conversely, I'll only post my opinion (which, by the way, I have every right to do - what with this being a public forum) or stance if I have any particular interest in the topic. Wow! It's just like I'm a person or something. Firstly, Spaceman is Philbo. Secondly, you do not know the reasons he was banned, and this information is rarely handed out to members because - to be frank - it's got nothing to do with anyone other than the staff, the banned party, and members who were directly involved (e.g. people who were trolled). Thirdly, if I (or anyone else for that matter) just banned anyone left right and center whenever we felt like it there would be very few posters here. As I said - "Nothing to do with you". Turns out you actually are Spaceman/Philbo, so I'm correcting this part now to stop you from being smug. Evading a ban is not allowed, so consider yourself on permanent final warning and this time try not to troll yourself to death. As a helpful hint, your Spaceman account was banned for trolling Severian and not - as you seem to think - just because someone quite felt like banning you that day. So? You are either flaming right now, or you honestly have no idea what flaming is. As for criticising someone for having arguments on a science and debate forum, I can only ask "wtf?". You must have a head the size of a beach ball if you think you are better qualified than the site owner to judge the performance of an admin on a forum you clearly don't understand very well. If you have a problem with me in future, you address it with me by PM. Why make a complete arse of yourself in public? Alternately, if you don't like speaking to people you disagree with, do yourself a favour and cancel your internet connection.

Well, just because some people use them interchangeably it doesn't mean that they are right - so as usual, bear in mind that most people are idiots For any useful purposes, a strategy is the overall application of tactics to achieve a goal from start to finish. A tactic is a means of accomplishing any given task in the strategy. I tend to think of strategies as classes, and tactics as functions belonging to a class.

I'm going to guess he'll reply "no" to that question, unless your role is something like "grand high lord general of checking everyone's political leanings".

Looks like Doctor Evil to me.

Oh please.

I don't think I apportioned blame for anything.

I know what he meant, but that doesn't mean I'm going to splurge an answer to a question he didn't ask in this thread. Reason:

Another post in another thread isn't really what I'd call "a part of the question". Regardless, he asked for the weight of a mass.

...yes, you're right - a giant flashing purple and yellow strobe effect should do it.

Exactly which part of the question would you say makes it a chemistry question? If you take the fact that it contains the name of an element, then by your reasoning if we swap the word 'iodine' for the word 'koala' then it becomes a zoology question, despite the fact that it is still calling for a mass->weight conversion, which is a physical function. Despite the trite but popular phrase, there is such a thing as the wrong question. I suggest in future we ask for clarification on ambiguous questions (even where we don't really need it), since this thread is going to be highly googled and we'd probably rather not get a reputation as a science site where the questions and answers fail to match up yet draw no comments.

No, that's why I locked it. I am going to change that locked icon for a flaming bright orange one at some point, because it's not very noticeable

Yes, the end users.

Never underestimate the power of idiots in groups.

No, the gram is a unit of mass. Weight is a force: mass x acceleration. [edit] To clarify: 1 gram of mass (which could be anything, iodine or otherwise) weighs 9.8x10-3 Newtons on the surface of the earth. Even if that isn't the answer to the question that he really wanted to ask.

This is neither a chemistry thread nor a physics thread, so the context is lost. 5614 is simply responding to the question that was asked, as have I.