Sayonara

Seeing as all the information required to understand my post was in my post, I'd put it more in the "actual questions" category. I don't think responding to what you perceive as a "thinly veiled insult" with an actual insult is the way to go really.

There's nothing wrong with the physics in the post. Can you not read? I said it was not good as an explanation, because it produces 2 different observable phenomena instead of just the one that he was trying to explain.

No, I'm not joking. ONE QUARTER RULE. VERY BASIC PHYSICS. MrL already gave that answer in the first reply. Only with diagrams and flashing lights.

I prefer to clean the dust from the screen, rather than the other way around.

You are wrong. Word != concept. Presumably because when mooeypoo reads something used in its correct scientific context, she retains it for recall later on; rather than allowing it to shoot straight out again when it becomes convenient to dispense with anything that might constrain daft arguments.

Evolution doesn't necessarily preclude creationism because any divine entity worth its own weight in salt would give the life it created the capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Creationism does not necessarily preclude evolution because evolution does not have to explain the origins of life.

Russian, not Chinese.

Humans don't get BSE as such - the human form is CJD: http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/intro.htm

I have no idea, seeing as it's all maths with some squishy bits added for fun.

So... it's a plastic ring with button magnets in it? WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?!

That's no the best explanation, because it could just as easily produce the effect of perceiving a brighter or darker image.

A whole chunk of that thread was moved, because it was spam.

Less of that. People who say "biology isn't a real science" are usually very stupid.

If you're talking about the USA using the USA's weapons, what everybody else is doing isn't really relevant.

Unless MrL lives for an infinite period, it's not likely he'd solve that anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1308732.stm

A timed mine would be better than remote mines anyway, as it's less vulnerable to enemy interference.

I'm not sure if this is a general reply to the thread, or to me, but here are some thoughts anyway: Swords are usually bought with display or ceremonial purposes in mind. While this is true of a lot of guns, very few people are observed buying swords for the purposes of self defence, or for training every day at the range so that they can defend their families "come the revolution". In short, there is no sword crisis. There's very little kudos or street cred afforded to people who drive around with a rapier in the glove-box. I'm not sure this discussion is really about fear, but if you don't fear someone who has the point of a broadsword pressed against your chest you may have issues (less pressing than the one near your heart, admittedly) Overall, I'd say that the issue of swords is not an argument for preventing the banning of guns. It's more an argument for banning swords as well. Unskilled people attacking with katana tend to cut their own ears off by the way

I'm not saying that safety equals freedom. I'm saying that someone who feels strongly compelled to undertake a certain action for reasons beyond their control is less free than someone who is not so compelled. No, as you said, you own them to protect yourself from whatever may threaten you with lethal force, which is by no means an ever-necessary measure (and incidentally not only achievable with a gun). The fact that your laws effectively give a civilian the right to suddenly and summarily become judge, jury and executioner in a matter of seconds surely qualifies as a restriction of freedom, even if the freedoms being restricted are those of a homicidal intruder. If you shoot such a person, your own freedoms may also be restricted later on depending on the outcome of any investigation into the matter, so you might say that the use of this freedom to bear arms can lead directly to the confinement of that and other freedoms. Anyhoo, off to bed. Catch you tomorrow ppl :zzz:

Maybe if everyone else around you didn't have the right to bear arms, you wouldn't be in perpetual fear of needing to defend yourself with the kind of lethal force that only a gun provides.

What sort of benefits might we reasonably expect in the future?

Note to self: YT immune to lightning. Shift funding from weather machine to orbital platforms.

Funky. You could almost say they were after a robot bee.

Will this be a special black box that monitors other peoples' cars? Lack of evidence that you committed one of the driving offences that the device can actually monitor will never be accepted as proof that the other driver is to blame.

Apparently if you split a closed thread, the child thread is closed by default. Opened