John Cuthber

Yes, and it has nothing to do with Islam. It's not as if Islam invented it. The best you can say is that "Islam didn't tell people to abandon their innate feelings of charity towards other people". That's hardly a commendation is it?

It's not semantics. What did Islam do to deserve respect? Hint- they didn't invent charity and it's likely that most of its followers, like most people, would have been charitable independently of any religion- including Islam.

Charity- in a broad sense- is a characteristic of humans, not of Islam. Islam certainly didn't invent the concept of helping others. If it had then that would be a way in which Islam had earned respect. But it didn't. So, while it's a good thing, it isn't a reason to respect Islam. Would you like to try again? What has Islam done to deserve respect?

Respect needs to be earned. What did Islam do to earn anyone's respect? (It's not clear that other religions are better- but that's not the topic here)

That trick works well for visible light, but lets the IR through so it's not safe.

"Now I can see veins everywhere on the body, through clothing, occasionally objects and on pictures." Have the pictures also lost weight?

This statement "have developed the ability to see veins where other people can't. " doesn't exactly tally with the idea that he happens to have slightly better near IR vision than most. If he has, he was almost certainly born with it. The "Crystal meth makes you see weird shit" explanation makes a lot more sense.

And if your thought isn't testable, then it's not science.

One possible reason why a Western government might prefer the Drs to use fentanyl is that it isn't made from opium which might be grown by "foreign people". Having said that, I'm not really convinced there is any real pressure to change prescribing habits.

Then you are sick or dead- because you certainly contain some lead. Also, re "is meat unhealthy?" Ordinarily, it's not just "unhealthy- it's been dead for a while by the time you eat it" The evidence is fairly strong that a diet with lots of meat in it is associated with a shorter life.

And who knows- you may even be right. But you have presumed that at least some facts exist, and that there are relationships between them. You can stop now.

Both could make sense in terms of water quality. What gets oxidised first depends on how oxidised they already are.

I have to say I agree; the statements are either trivially true, or trivially false, depending on the interpretation.

Re " P(x1+c,x2+c,⋯,xi+c,⋯,xn+c)−P(x1,x2,⋯,xi,⋯,xn)=0" you seem to have used some symbols there. There's a tacit presumption that the symbols mean what you think they do and that the relationships between the symbols in some way mimic relationships between real entities. There's also a presumption that some entities exist, in order to be represented by those symbols. That's a whole pile of presumption.

Hi My name is Barack Obama. Would you like a lesson on establishing identities on the internet?

No, I' was suggesting- more or less as Area54 suggested, that these superheavy elements were produced in some very energetic process- supernova, neutron stars colliding- whatever. If you smash tiny bits off a neutron star, you essentially create heavy nuclei. The "stuff" of nuclei and neutron stars is fairly similar (at least, compared to just about anything else). So making almost any nuclei you want by this process is "plausible". Technetium is very short lived, but -as in earthbound reactors, it can be made by fission. There are plenty of fissionable materials present so why wouldn't you find Tc? Also there are "million year" isotopes of Tc so it could have been made in the same event as some of the other elements. I suspect that we will struggle to identify the isotopes for these elements in their star. The spectral broadening due to other factors- notably temperature- in a star will swamp any isotopic effects on the optical spectra.

The phrase "short lived" seems to be a relative term. Most of the elements mentioned have million year life spans. There are a few that are short lived but I think most of them may be decay products of longer lived ones. It seems we may be looking at the aftermath of an event that happened a million years ago. Also, as far as I understand it, the synthesis of "heavy" elements in stars doesn't "stop" with uranium. The heavier elements are also made, but they decay. We don't normally see the heavier ones because we are looking so long after the event. It seems to me, in this case, we have found the ashes of a a supernova or some such mixed into a star before the high z stuff decayed away.

So what? We figured out how to get to the moon and we figured out (most of) evolution.

If Hitler had won, those soldiers wouldn't have faced any trial questioning the legitimacy of the orders. The orders were wrong (by almost any criteria) but they were legal.

No, It shows that one person, who tacitly reports them self as female has made a monumental mistake. It says absolutely nothing about anyone else.

The station isn't very much further from the centre of the earth than we are. (6771 km compared to 6,371) (about 6% further our) So the local free fall acceleration should be only slightly smaller (about 12 % less) than the acceleration near ground level- about 9.8 m/s/s So, why is the orbital decay rate not something like 8.7 m/s/s? What's holding it up?

I'm glad someone recognised that's what I was doing.

Nope, there are fewer.

The threat only works if it's credible that you would use them. So if someone asks "Would you use them?" you have essentially 3 choices (1) "No" (2) "I'm not saying" and (3) "Yes". As far as I can tell, # 3 is the best deterrent. So, if the point is that they are a deterrent, you have to give answer #3 to make the best "use" of them.. He thought so to- and it's his job to know about that sort of thing.

I thought the point of most nukes was to be used in retaliation and the issue simply hasn't arisen yet.