John Cuthber

OK, let's take that all at face value. There are a bunch of pharmaceutical companies who are marketing drugs that are known to cause problems- specifically they cause some patients to become suicidal, or even murderous. The obvious question is why? Another question would be why are they all doing it? The one who came up with a comparable drug without that side effect would make a vast profit by taking all the business (and it's a huge business). But, in the context of this thread, the interesting question is what can we do? We could, of course, stop using these drugs. But, the evidence (shoddy though it may be) indicates that the drugs actually work- at least for most people Thus we would be removing valuable treatment from vast numbers of people with mental health problems. In a country where those folk can still buy guns, I am not sure that drops the net death toll. But what would you suggest we do? More research is an obvious answer, but in the meantime, what do we do?

r buy any laser you like, but put a filter over it https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/401413220438?chn=ps&adgroupid=57477863008&rlsatarget=pla-413073660608&abcId=1133926&adtype=pla&merchantid=119067196&poi=&googleloc=9046552&device=c&campaignid=1058613747&crdt=0

(1)- fine- as far as it goes*, but nothing to do with the 2nd amendment (2) That's a made up story. He gets caught. He learned those skills in the military- the military officers in the film tell the police not to get into a fight they may not win. It's not a story of a "plucky independent individual winning against the military". * "As far as it goes- i.e. ignoring the reality where a gun in the home is a lot more likely to kill a family member than a "bad guy".

Just a thought re ""Trade wars are good"" Delete the word "trade", and think about it.

I'm also intrigued by another question (or two- they are related). When your country spends more on the military than the next half dozen or so countries put together; (1) from whom are you defending yourselves with your handful of assault rifles and (2) how well do you think you would defend yourself against a with what amount to pea-shooters against tanks? I thought so too, but have you seen who got elected last time?

Seems like a fair summary. It's also important to remember that the constitution isn't holy scripture- you are allowed to change it. The 2nd amendment is, after all, an amendment. On the other hand, my research on this was based on watching the Simpsons.

If you are pointing out constellations... The only bit of the user that is particularly vulnerable is their eyes.

If you are going to point them at the sky, it won't matter if they emit infrared.

More studies, and far better ones than this hogwash.

Your question makes no sense. Iodine is not an antibiotic. If you don't know what you are doing (and it's clear that you don't) then you should let someone else- a doctor- look after your healthcare. You certainly shouldn't kid yourself that you are helping others. For the sake of the chemistry, the iodine is reduced by ascorbic acid to hydrogen iodide. (this will destroy its anti-septic properties). The ascorbic acid is oxidised to dehydroascorbic acid.

It's a simplistic approach but, the GDP of the US is slightly bigger than that of the EU so, in principle it might be able to bully them. However the rest of the world id s likely to side with the EU. It also gives the game away that he doesn't really believe in free market capitalism. That may well help his political opponents.

That is pretty much what I claim. I am actually trying to put more general case but that is certainly one example. It could have been so simple without all the trolling eh!? It would have been better if you had just said what you meant, rather than repeatedly asking an impossible set of questions. Why did you choose the silly option, or is that what you meant by " all the trolling"?

I'm trying to work out if this whole thread is just a spectacularly long-winded way to say something like this: It it takes more energy to make a wind turbine than it will produce during its lifetime then we shouldn't make it. In particular, public funds should not be spent on making it.

I think it is poorly defined.

It works. Why would it not?

Since a subsidy is a payment (or rebate or whatever) that one group gets, but another doesn't; you can't say whether me getting $1 back is a subsidy or not. It is if I get it because I'm a solar power company and the coal power industry doesn't get it. It's not a subsidy if everyone gets it. That's why the question makes no sense. To say if it is a subsidy or not, you need to know what everyone else gets.

No, you always seem to be in the right thread for that. This thread is about... well, just read the OP.

No, it's another forum screw up It should say Perhaps you can tell us what you think the answers are. . At least you have an excuse for ignoring it the second time, because it was invisible.

Then you are in the wrong thread.

Meanwhile in reality.

"Your post is unchanged. You have a great day!!" It's "unchanged" in the very real sense that I added this Now, given that you can't answer the questions Yes or No , without knowing the base rate... perhaps you would like to try again. Perhaps you can tell us what you think the answers are.

Quite well. Many of the problems remain- especially the weather and that's what this thread was initially about. So, I guess you think it's a coincidence that the things improved shortly after people with money and resources tried to improve them.

Hahahahaaa! Good one! Thanks for playing, John. You have a great day, Y'hear!! You posted that while I was editing my post. Would you like another go?

"Really John? The question is not clear enough?" I explained why it's not clear. I explained why, at a base tax rate of 30% the answer is different from the answer at a base tax rate of 60% Others have also commented that your question isn't clear. If you are not going to tell us what the question is then, whether anyone closes the thread or not, you won't get an answer. Come back when something changes.