John Cuthber

Fine, except that the racism in the US is, in fact, major. So, all you do is move the dishonesty to saying "the black guys are lying about the severity of the racism".

Are we talking about the man who said "“I do not believe we have a major race problem in this country. I just don’t," "? Because he's either racist or dimwitted, and I think we can rule out the second option. To say that implies that you simply do not value the opinions of all those who point out racism in daily life and, of course, most of those people (in the US) are not white. He's simply writing off the experience of a whole section of society, and the basic defining aspect of that section is race. If he has said " I think all the black guys complaining about racism are liars" would people notice the racism there? How different is it from what he did say?

Making America grate again.

Well, no matter how bad we may be, at least we haven't completely renounced evidence as you have. Would you like to provide some, or are you just going to prove that the "bigots" are right.

Have you thought about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-encapsulation

No. The water activity will be pretty nearly constant. The OP's question is complex because there are so many possible stains and so many different fabrics Some (for example rust) simply won't be affected by bleach, however many will be oxidised to colourless materials. On the other hand, given time, the bleach will damage the cloth. Heating things up will speed up both those reactions (bleach with stand and bleach with cloth) but probably not to the same extent. Diluting the bleach will slow both reactions down. So what you need to fnd are conditions where the bleach destroys the stain, but without damaging the cloth too much.

Probably. You might want to look at the maths here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes's_law

Among the aspects of this which amuse me is the idea that children don't look in "The Big Dictionary". The sad truth may well be that many kids wouldn't recognise an acorn if they saw one; in which case "A is for acorn" is unhelpful. But the way to address that is to change the kids' experience (so they do know what the word means) rather than to taylor the dictionary to meet their lack of experience.

PCBs are practically banned due to toxicityand don't have very high dielectric constants

His non-existence is what science calls the null hypothesis. It's the easy answer to why He doesn't do something, regardless, not only of my opinion, but also of whether it's true or not. I'm happy to look ignorant but if this thread doesn't veer back to reality it's going to get closed down. Can we just return to the simple observation that you didn't understand what I posted? Calling scientists "children" is not the same as calling children "scientists".

Sadly, that's not what it is usually interpreted as meaning Easy answer- he doesn't exist. which, thankfully, brings us back to the topic.

Badly. My comment was that it would be silly to pretend that scientists act like children- rather than the other way round. Children often act like scientists. They are notorious for asking "but why?" repeatedly. The ones who don't get that curiosity knocked out of them might grow up to do science. It's interesting to note that one powerful force for stopping kids asking questions is to give meaningless answers like "He moves in mysterious ways" rather than honest ones like "I don't know".

So what?

That same designer also ensured that (1) they were susceptible to being led astray by serpents and (2) there was a serpent there, programmed to lead them astray thereby ensuring that they would be led to eat the fruit. Seriously, putting the serpent in the garden (knowing what would happen) was the cruelest thing ever done. I really can't understand how anyone would worship the perpetrator of such an act. So, that pretty much eliminates the Word of God as a useful source of morality. (Unless, of course, you consider setting up those weaker than you to fail in a way that leads them to eternal damnation and torment, is a morally acceptable way to behave. Your morality may vary) So, back at the topic, There are plainly occasions where science has seen the importance of morality- they use ethics committees, for example.

There's no reason to think that gold helps your brain (or anything else). It is toxic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Toxicity Colloidal gold gives rise to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysiasis which is similar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria in one important way. Do you want to turn blue?

I never saw those. The ones I saw had stacks of problems + inconsistencies.

I blame the designer...

It's not chemistry. I'm not a geneticist, molecular biologist or medic, and I spotted that ... it had issues. Why not google it (like I did) and find out that they won't (by an order of magnitude or so), rather than posting stuff that's meaningless? And bacteria don't. I not only read it, I quoted quite a lot of it. Please take time to make a cursory check on the possibility of your ideas before posting them. You won't do that by posting stuff that makes no sense.

An engine runs hot.

I don't know. But people seem to let it. As has been pointed out, many people seem to have linked the two. You are correct; there is no logical link. Indeed, the link goes the wrong way. If you really want to cut down on the number of terminations, the best way to do it is to ensure that contraception (and advice) is readily available. There do not seem to be many groups advocating that view.

In principle, I want receipts. In practice, the one for a bar of chocolate is a waste of paper.

Space in journals is limited. Space on-line is almost free. Could journals publish a "fully annotated" version of their articles on the web? I rather suspect that you would need a lot of (virtual) paper to explain anything published in today's maths journals in such a way that "the man in the street" could follow it. and, if you did so, I think the audience would be practically nil. so I guess you are only expecting enough scaffold for those who already know a lot. Where do you draw the line?

It won't fit. A typical virus has about 100,000 base pairs. You are trying to stuff in a thousand times more. It seems to have escaped your notice, but we are more complex than a virus. Nor does anyone else. There's no virus that targets every cell in the body. The immune system would be fighting against this. How? Magic? "Attempt" is probably the right word. How? Every cell in the body has a set of the instructions for that body, including the relevant bits for male or female. But no cell in the body has the genetic information that codes for the "half way" stage- whether that's with both sets of bits, or neither. So there's no instruction set to follow to bring about the change. Essentially, there's no genetic code for "the willy drops off". So your idea is doomed to fail.

That's all very well, but it loses sight of the feedback. It is certainly plausible that (1) The police, for some arbitrary reason- possibly sheer chance, arrest a disproportionately large number of black people. (2) As a consequence of that, the arrest rates are higher for black people. (3)The police interpret that as implying that black people commit more crime (which should be a valid implication). (4)On that basis, they target black people for "suspicion" (Again, this should be a valid way to act; if you see some group as being more likely to be involved in committing crime, it makes sense for the police to target that group) and, (5) as a consequence of spending more time looking at black people, they arrest disproportionately more black people. (and, yet again, that should be a sensible outcome) (6) And that drives the arrest rate for blacks up still further. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has made a logical error except in failing to check the statistical (and other) validity of the first step. In reality, it's possible that part of the reason for the initial high arrest rate is racism, but it's not necessarily the cause. The real problem is that an arrest rate should be an indicator of criminality, but it may not be.

So, what you are saying is that only the shop should have proof of purchase. Doesn't their money already give them enough of an advantage? On a related note https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blair-claims-1m-expenses-without-producing-receipts-dchj99tjk