John Cuthber

And while we keep saying that the woman shouldn't have worn a short skirt, we make life easier for the bad people. Is that what you want?

Why not? However, there certainly won't be if men are given the tacit excuse that "it's her fault for ....". Maybe if we stop pretending that men are not in control of their own dicks, there will come a time when women aren't at risk.

If the question is mu-metal vs aluminium then (perhaps ironically) you can tell them apart with a magnet

I read it. I'm raising the same points others raised, because you didn't address them. You have not produced evidence. There's a difference between what you claimed "One would reasonably need to show that optimization is not a crucial evolutionary component/goal" and what you now claim "evolution does appear to have a goal" Appearances are deceptive. "I don't know why you are saying somethings aren't optimal, because I didn't say that everything was optimal." You said that the "goal" of evolution is optimisation but in the real world, evolution can not (always) find optima. So, no matter who reads the previous pages (or how often), your original assertion is still wrong. Pretending that you have shown evidence won't cut it on a science web site. Really? That's interesting Where do you post them and can you supply a link to them- better yet, you might want to include them in your posts here.

Evolution does not have a "goal" because it has no intent; it just happens. Many things produced by evolution are far from optimal and, at least in some cases, there is no credible evolutionary path to the global optimum because it's stuck at or near the local optimum. Now, given that the quote is what you said it would take to show your idea to be wrong, you ought to stop arguing with people here + go + redraft your idea.

It's hardly a "New alloy"- there's a wiki page about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrotitanium I suspect it would be brittle.

The only person responsible for rape is the rapist. A woman who falls victim to an attack will usually have been seen by many other men before the assault took place. The if the way she was dressed was the "reason" for that attack, how come the other men didn't assault her when she was dressed that way? How do you rule out the idea that it's because the other men weren't shits? I'm not sure it's relevant, and I will come to that later. Legally, the driver is at fault. He's the one who decided to set tons of metal moving. Legally, if he couldn't stop in time, he was driving too fast. (even the courts don't normally enforce the law in this way) It's still a complex issue; how old is the child? A toddler who doesn't understand that busses are dangerous can't be responsible. In that case, the responsibility lies with whoever should have been looking after the child. If the child is old enough that they should know that a bus can't stop immediately then it's the child's fault. But, again, it could be the fault of those who should have explained the dangers of the road. The reason I think it's irrelevant is that the driver did not deliberately decide to run the child down whereas a rapist does deliberately decide to attack someone. If someone set out to murder a child by crashing a bus into them then it's totally bloody obvious whose fault it is that the child dies. Anything else would be blaming the victim. We should stop focusing on telling our daughters to "be careful" and start telling our sons to ******* well behave properly.

The seat belt laws were introduced because the tax-payer got tired of picking up the medical bills of people who thought seal belts were not a good idea. There are other factor in play but it's irrelevant to the issue. If a woman walks through town with no clothes on she will be stared at. However she shouldn't be assaulted. Any assault is caused by the perpetrator's lack of self control and empathy, not her lack of clothes (nor on what, if anything, she chose to wear). Stop blaming victims.

Do you mean the paragraph that then says "However, pure single-crystalline tungsten is more ductile, and can be cut with a hard-steel hacksaw"? Cherry picking wiki like that doesn't make you look good. Later on that same page it explains " If made very pure, tungsten retains its hardness (which exceeds that of many steels), and becomes malleable enough that it can be worked easily.[13] It is worked by forging, drawing, or extruding. ". When you have finished reading wiki, go look at a tungsten light bulb filament, drawn into fine wire, then coiled - typically twice- and explain how that's possible if it's brittle. Did it occur to you that "polycrystalline" practically speaking, means "with cracks already built in"? The interfaces between the crystals make it brittle, but they don't relate to the topic which is about the crystal structure, not the interfaces.

Last time I checked, the word "ductile" meant being able to be drawn into thin wire. My light bulb filaments say that you have put tungsten in the wrong column. So does my roll of Molybdenum wire (not to mention the Mo wire and tape used in lamps as connectors for the W filaments).

My gut feeling is that the second option is better. It wouldn't be a particularly difficult experiment to do. You might find this useful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array

This topic seems to pop up from time to time.

The problem is when people also shorten hexamethylene diisocyanate (AKA HDI) to Methylene di-isocyanate and then get one or other mixed up with hydrogenated MDI (AKA HMDI) officially known as bis isocyanatocyclohexylmethane They seem to have chosen a bunch of compounds that are bound to get muddled.

Spirograph is also real.

Life imitates art or something. https://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-us-minuteman-si-1473483587

Methyl diisocyanate doesn't make sense. Do you mean methylene diphenyl diisocyanate? The route of exposure isn't as important as you might expect. It's possible to get asthma by skin contact with these things.

Probably, but it's hard to tell without context.

I could use a laugh. Please show the evidence that thermodynamics and optimisation are linked in this case. "as a scientist one should be wary of the words: "x" has nothing to do with "y"." or vice versa.

"Trump is off playing golf" would be a better cover story than a hospital visit.

Probably something like this or one of its successors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Mobile_Phone_System

It is at least as likely to be because the sound shook the dust off the panels.

I'm fairly sure he only really represents 1 US citizen; unfortunately, that citizen has his hand on "The Button".

Essentially the answer to that is "maybe". Isocyanates themselves are very reactive and are often derivatised before analysis by reaction with, for example, dibutlylamine. The substituted dibutyl urea is then measured by GC/MS. However, it's perfectly possible for the dibutylamine to react with a polyurethane and to give exactly the same product. (you don't see ammonolysis as often as hydrolysis- but it still happens) Similarly, anything that involves heating the polyurethane might cause it to decompose forming isocyanates. My view is that, regardless of the apparent measurements (and there are studies that support both sides), isocyanates are unstable in the presence of water and there's always water around.

I rather hope that nobody gave Trump the real codes.

As opposed to things like astrology which claim to study the future but are really just made-up shit. I'm not sure if Ed is flattering the OP or insulting philosophy when he says "I believe it is philosophy rather than science." "