John Cuthber

The rest of the world does not have a shooting spree at a school every week. It is not because we have a better definition of the phrase "assault rifle".

Well, that makes a change; people usually cite cars as the "thing that kills a lot of people". It hardly matters. There's a thing called a cost/ benefit analysis. The cost of cars, poisons and guns- in terms of death tolls- is fairly easy to see. The next thing to look at is the benefits from those things. The poisons and cars are clearly useful... Making the observation about "other things kill" without looking at the fact that the only things guns are really made for is killing, is either massively careless, or intellectually dishonest.

Strictly speaking that's not a contradiction. I strongly suspect that most of the NRA members also want the government to "do something". They just don't think that "something" should involve taking their toys away. The government should magically take guns away from "bad guys", but not "ordinary people like us who just want to own guns". I doubt that, even among the hardliner supporters of the NRA, you will find many who think that roughly a school massacre per week is "acceptable ". They just don't make the link between their actions in opposing control, and the continued slaughter. They say things like "guns don't kill people" and "the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun...".

To my mind, the interesting thing about the astronomical unit is that it was fairly widely used before anyone really knew how big it was. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/62-our-solar-system/planets-and-dwarf-planets/venus/262-how-did-a-transit-of-venus-provide-astronomers-with-the-first-measurement-of-the-earth-sun-distance-intermediate Another interesting issue is that the abbreviation AU is also used for Absorption Units (in spectroscopy) and for also fro Angstrom units (not everybody has an "Å" on their keyboard.) The former issue can be resolved by context- only one of them is a unit of length. The second can be resolved by asking "is it bigger than a breadbox?" A similar approach can be taken with the distinction between the nanometre (nm) and teh nautical mile (nm)

So... you think the OP was asking if a car was the same as light... That's an unorthodox way to look at it. Admittedly, given that the OP makes assertions that are not true you might use it to generate all sorts of paradoxes. I know what he said, but it's not relevant. You said which is nonsense, but your implication was that someone else had said it. They hadn't.

Says who?

Nobody said that, and you should know better than to try a strawman attack. Congratulations, you have demonstrated that a car is not the same as light. Now all you need to do is find someone who was wondering about that question. Please, don't let us delay you in your search- elsewhere.

A wiser man than me once wrote that true contentment is not the absence of desire, but the absence of jealousy. Would it be sufficient to ensure this "ultimate satisfaction" that you were content with what you had got?

"Can i speculate about Heaven?" Yes, that's all you can do about it. So, what would be the point. You just end up with a bunch of statements like "heaven might be pink". The speculations may be longer, but they will still be devoid of any factual content.

Well, according to this remarkably well informed site. https://randomwordgenerator.com/ "dance example similar mosquito sympathetic work out accompany pound spontaneous important" But I'm sure you knew that already.

Once again- since you can see light, it's visible and there's nothing more to say about it.

I haven't seen the show, and probably won't but I'm wondering what sot of plot device this BArGaIn is. My first guess would be that it's a MacGuffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin But it occurreed to me that it's a bit specific for that. Is it one of these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_device

Not if I was facing in the wrong direction Not if there was something in the way Not if it was dark All of these things would mean that light from China didn't reach my eyes. Similarly the fact that the light from the laser doesn't reach my eyes is the straightforward reason why I can't see it. If we change the meanings of words then we can make anything "true", but it isn't helpful. However, if we use the conventional meanings "invisible" means something you can't see and you have already agreed that we can see light (albeit that you seem to think we need to stick a number on the word "see"). So, since light is something can see, and things you can see are not invisible, light is not invisible. The meanings of words are entirely artificial and thus the distinctions between them are too- but, as long as we stick with the accepted meanings we can communicate. If we stop using words for their "accepted" uses then fish handstand juice blue circuit.

"I wonder if we can reduce the quantity of salt (mostly Cl- and Ca2+) from water by electrolysis and still be safe to drink. " Yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodialysis

Been there; done that. That's the same issue as the coast of China. I can't see it because I'm not in the right place so I'm not looking at it. Obviously, I need to clarify what that means for you. There is no pathway for light from the coast of China to reach my eyes (because there is stuff in the way) and there is no way for light from the laser to reach my eyes (because it's going in the wrong direction.. For the sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring scattering of light by air. No it looks as if you are saying that something you can see is invisible. I guess you can call that semantics, but only if you more or less ignore the accepted definition of the words. (you sometimes choose to put numbers on the word "see" to show that- like many English words- it has slightly different meanings depending on context)

Well, they nearly had another go at it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42999286

We have a viable suggestion that dying in a dream may "scare someone to death" and we have had other views and thoughts expressed.. We seem to have several examples of people dying in dreams, but surviving in real life. Perhaps we should ask that (in the interest of balance)the next post be from someone who did in fact die in real life as a consequence of dying in a dream.

Silver is a slightly better conductor of heat (and has a much higher thermal diffusivity)...

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars Does this look dubbed to you?

Just a degree, and I work in the civil service. Bit's of the job a re good; bits suck.

Which leads to the discovery of this little lot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absement#Higher_integrals

There s a theory which states that all jobs are ****, that's why you get paid to do them.

Dear me, that's awful. They should be held to account for fraud. At least when I was there (things may have changed) the degree you got depended essentially entirely on your exam results. So getting someone else to write your term-time essays for you would be pointless.

Then, by a neat "begging the question" argument, light isn't a visible thing because it's not a thing. However the thread isn't about "thing-ness" i's a bout "see-able-ness". More fundamentally, I see you have finally come round to my way of thinking. Light is a thing we can see, ergo it is not invisible. If there is a process of seeing light then light is visible. QED. Also, you seem to have missed the context of my comment that you only see light. The blue apple that you insisted that I saw only exists in my head- it's like the hippo. Same for the optical illusions. And the same is true of the view you have of the world. If you look at a landscape only a ting bit in the middle is actual in proper focus. Almost all of what you "see" is formed in your brain from what you expect to see. Is this gorilla invisible? http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html

Nice strawman. Light is a thing. So "light" is a subset of "things". If I had said that light was a "macro object" - whatever that may be- you would have a point. I didn't. You haven't. Nobody said they did. However, both are legitimate uses. So I really can see light . So it's really not invisible.