Sayonara

The rest of the thread so far has not convinced me to change my answer, personally

The key to answering this question is understanding what molarity represents. The rest is just very simple number-crunching. An explanation of how molarity is used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration An explanation of the unit "mole": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)

Yes, but there is also the fact that other bird species could/would have avoided this extinction by migrating and expanding their range. If the prey species is too specialised to occupy refuges where the predator cannot reach them, then the simple fact that the predator eats them is not the sole reason for their demise: it's also because they are not adaptive enough to cope. This is what I meant about "habitat denial" - it's the aspect of the niche becoming untenable rather than being destroyed. Yes it can happen, but this doesn't mean it has to. The dodo is a good high profile example of a species whose extinction was (near enough) due to hunting, whereas the woolly mammoth is a similarly high profile example of a species which went extinct for a blend of reasons, one of which may have been over-hunting. It's helpful to remember that hunting by humans usually applies moderate selective pressure to species. Not normally enough to force large adaptations, but sometimes enough to force range expansion. Dunno. What's his evidence? Does he give any basis from ecological evolution, or is it mainly by example? Agreed. Although this means we have to then differentiate between "pollutants", which change the habitat but do not directly affect the species in question, and "toxins", which enter the habitat and directly kill individuals.

Mars colonisation tends to create problems, not solve them. See here for more detail: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25639

I doubt that there are many extinctions caused solely by a single factor, and in this respect I don't see why habitat destruction as a cause should stand alone. There are so many species which are completely adapted and specialised to survive in a single limited habitat that it is inevitable that many will be destroyed when that habitat is altered. We should remember that many species will be destroyed along with their habitats without us even noticing. It could be as lowly as a moss that only grows around one particular type of tree, but it still "counts". We also need to be careful about what we consider to be "habitat destruction". We might say "habitat destruction didn't kill the spotted trout, pollution did", but if the pollution did not affect the spotted trout directly, yet altered its habitat to such an extent that the species could not survive there, then that could be interpreted as habitat destruction. Perhaps "habitat denial" would be a less ambiguous term?

It's not stupid, it's just so highly conditional as to be a poor generalisation.

I am not really sure why we have allowed this travesty to continue.

A recent high profile extinction was that of the Baiji, or Yangtze dolphin. It was in serious decline since the 1950s due to entanglement in nets etc, but the destruction of its habitat through pollution accelerated matters. The final nail in the coffin was the completion of the Three Gorges Dam in Sandouping, and the species is now considered wiped out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiji One of the problems the dolphin had was a lack of refuge spaces. This is not always a problem for terrestrial or oceanic animals, which can sometimes migrate and - depending on their ability to adapt - make do with slightly different habitats.

So basically, you are admitting that yes, you in fact lied to an admin just to wriggle out of something that wasn't even an official sanction. You are in violation of the site rules. You can keep that and as many other strong but unhelpful opinions as you want, just don't bother us with them.

Staggering, to try and get your head around such a cataclysmic event. These stars really are quite the drama queens, aren't they?

For the past three decades or so it has become increasingly academically accepted that a large part of healthy self-identification with respect to gender is psychological rather than just genotypic. What this bill intends to address (or part of it, at any rate) is that the continued teaching of how "traditional" family units should be composed creates a myth of normality, thereby opening the door wide for the institutionalised ostracism of anyone who does not fit into this rigid pattern. Creating a society of true equality is very difficult to do because you have to change deeply-rooted social attitudes on a massive scale, often swimming against the tide of conventional social wisdoms (such as an education system that tells children to take Mummy, Daddy, Jane and Tommy as being the norm). This bill will be a very small drop in the ocean, but it will help make life better for everyone if it is executed properly and not used as a political whipping boy.

My favourite bit is where everyone starts blaming the "gay community" for this non-existent "ban", even though 99.999% of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are as unaware of its existence as we all were before we looked at this thread. People really are awesome. "I am morally outraged at the thing that I haven't checked!", brilliant.

That might actually work. If they are too tight-fisted to buy their own fags, they will scarper the moment you start charging.

Okay, back on topic everyone. The crazy talk has been moved elsewhere by staff so any more persistent de-railing of the thread is going to result in a suspension.

I haven't invested any time or money in string theory. But if I had, you can be sure I'd be backing up any claims I made with something other than "I am right but I'm not telling you why".

I couldn't care less what your reasons are. Look, it's very simple: Don't make claims you can't or won't back up.

Well, no. But that's what it is getting called nonetheless Until people start using their children as weapons against smokers. Absolutely, but this legislation is just one of several options, and it's the one option that detracts from civil liberties. Quite. Almost every bar and pub where I live already has this in place, and it seems to work very well. People who jump on the persecution bandwagon so rarely realise that the same things can be done to them, once they have helped to establish the social precedent.

It's definitely a good thing in terms of health and having an enjoyable time. OTOH, there is something to be said for allowing people the choice of which kind of venue they want to visit or work in.

I nominate you in the category of "First self-nomination to be seconded for no other reason than to complicate a thread."

Iirc in the UK it will be "in enclosed public spaces and within 10 metres of an entrance to the same", or something. Yes, it is a bit heavy-handed. Very unnecessary too, seeing as there are already pubs with total non-smoking policies through the mutual choice of the management and regular punters, and it doesn't seem to bother people that much that they can either go in pubs A through E and smoke, or go in pubs F through H and just hold on for a bit (or - woah - go outside). The pub I go to every other Friday after work with chaps from the nick is non-smoking, incidentally. Enforcement will differ between different police forces. In my area, the council is paying for civilians to basically be hall monitors (like the "street wardens" who have popped up in city centres), stomping about looking for any filthy smokers they can tell off. I think that particular job might just become very unpopular, very quickly.

Rofl, "I have empirical evidence but I am not showing it to you." Never gets less funny.

Dunno, but I am not going to make an argument from incredulity out of it

Yes. I mean no. No, I mean yes. Yesno.

Firstly I don't think drink-driving is quite as addictive a behaviour as smoking, but that is somewhat beside the point. More importantly, drink-drivers are stupid (and irresponsible, and callous, and self-serving) for engaging in a stupid behaviour. I would think most of those people who you assume to agree with you would also agree with that. However that is not even what you meant. The implication of "a person who is idiotic enough to smoke" is pretty clear; you are proposing that one must be an idiot to smoke. It is hardly ambiguous. Given that idiots are traditionally linked with exhibiting idiotic behaviour, you can't seriously expect now that someone has taken offence to be able to change tack and say that you were "talking about behaviours rather than people". Particularly considering the fact that you were actually, if you remember, talking about people. Or I presume they are people, since on the subsequent four occasions you mention the smoking assistant in your experiment, you refer to them as "the sucker". You have been warned without infraction points ("verbally", you might say) because it was obviously an off-the-cuff comment. I don't intend to labour over this any further and I am not interested if you "disagree" with me or not. Learn from the mistake of assuming that you are free to take pot-shots at a group you perceive to be universally unpopular, and move on. I know that you are quite capable of making your points without needing to flaunt petty prejudices.