John Cuthber

Very droll. However, it's important to recognise why that flap of skin is an important pathway for access by HIV. HIV targets the immune system. Cells of the immune system are present at high levels in the foreskin. If a zillion years of evolution led to a lot of immune cells at the end of men's dicks, it's not difficult to imagine a reason for that- they help prevent infection. That's not something we should discard lightly- especially in places where HIV infection is a relatively low risk. None of it impacts the notion that men can make up their own minds about this as and when it becomes relevant to them.

A dead link isn't really strong evidence either way.

There is, IIRC a real mechanism. The cell markers to which HIV binds in the first place are strongly expressed by the mucosal cells of the foreskin. However that's irrelevant until the man is sexually active and by that stage he will( or should) be old enough for consent.

Jfoldbar, you need to understand that Pymander is really good at trying to use the "argument from authority" logical fallacy. It doesn't work very well. People point out that this "When Woodrow was asked if he believed Edgar Cayce to be a real psychic, Woodrow said "No man is that good a liar." " only matters if Wilson had some special ability to spot liars. There is no reason to suppose that he did. Similarly, this "The very existence of the Jews, and of Christianity and its influence over two thousand years, is difficult to explain unless the Bible and Jesus are the truth on some level of significance. " doesn't make much sense since you could apply it equally validly (or equally invalidly) to any scripture. It doesn't make sense, except at the level where, if a book says lots of things and some of tem er true, then the book has some truth in it. So what? That's true of Toad of Toad Hall- but it doesn't make it into holy writ. I could go on, but there's not much point. Further evidence of his impermeability to facts can be found, for example, in teh trhead here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-43#entry986934 You might want to consider that he has a current reputation here of -41 and he's achieved that while only posting 154 times.

The benefit of circumcision before, rather than after, reaching the age of consent are slight.

Not on a science web site, it isn't- not even if you shout it in capital letters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory If you are lucky it might pass muster as an hypothesis.

It might be useful to separate out the chemistry from the physics. That's a problem because they overlap. (physicists are known to make jokes about it). Chemistry has a lot of definitions, but essentially is the study of the reactions between different substances. fire is a chemical process, not a physical one. So, for example, you can't (usually) have a fire with a single substance. Normally, one of the substances involved is oxygen from the air. In that way, it is different from, for example, evaporation. Water can evaporate or freeze without there being any other substance there. You can't say "Solid>Ignition temp>Fire" Because not all solids burn- water is an example. You cant "ignite" ice.

Freezing doesn't reliably kill bacteria so there might still be some. Itt's not, in principle, a difficult experiment to do if you can get sterilised milk.

OK, that's the point where I start laughing and walk away.

I'm fairly well aware of what will happen. In order to get the electrolysis to work at high pressure- for example- under the ocean- you need to provide a higher voltage. As you say "decreasing the pressure will increase the efficiency of electrolysis.". So working at high pressure underwear decreases the efficiency. Why go to that trouble, and make it less efficient? So, the energy you get from the paddle wheel turned by the bubbles is, at best, exactly the same as the extra energy you use in the electrolysis. Since you don't need to do all this electrolysis + deep ocean work to turn a wheel with electricity (you can just use a motor) why bother to do this at the bottom of the sea?

Why bother going to the bottom of the ocean?

For a long time nothing happened then, suddenly, it happened again. Nice tune.

Even more cool. It seems more difficult to react to an external changing load than a simple one like gravity- which is why I asked.

Actually, what happened at the outset of this thread was that you came up with your own- non-standard definition "I defined it as A: Being able to think logically. B: Having emotion and being self aware C: Having a language of some sort." Plenty of others disagreed. Having started from a non-agreed definition, this thread was bound to go nowhere. Since no two of you seem to agree exactly what characteristic(s) you are talking about there can't be a word for it; fricking or otherwise.. You cannot, in any way, tell me you think this is affecting your life.

I looked at their catalogue; you can get a doctor of chiropractic too. Scary, isn't it. Zavier. Acupuncture isn't a science; indeed it has very little to do with science since it's usually regarded as borderline fraud. The best advice anyone here is going to give you is: Quit; and then do something else.

I don't see this as amateur science. A cubic foot of gas is roughly a mole. About 2/3 of that would be hydrogen so at 1 bar you would have about 2/3 moles of H2 You are planning on using about 330 Bar so that's about 220 moles heat of combustion is 286 KJ/mol About 63 MJ About 15Kg of TNT plus the pressure volume energy, but that's small beer. Someone is probably going to post here saying I shouldn't have helped in case he's a terrorist. Nothing would suit me better than some terrorist trying to do this; they are almost bound to kill themselves prematurely. If you aren't then I strongly urge you not to even try anything like this; you are almost bound to kill yourself.

Look again. It was a criticism of society for continuing- as you say- to characterise as "neutral" something that's fairly clearly wrong (at least, without consent).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sentient ADJECTIVEAble to perceive or feel things. Dogs can certainly feel hungry and they can feel pain. Whether or not that's at the level of self awareness is another argument. They perceive- as other have pointed out- things like 40KHz ultrasound (which we can't). So they are sentient. Failing to hold a conversation is a different matter. (Unless, of course, you have a different definition of the word)

Death from infection is a perfectly credible outcome. Why did QQ's post get marked down?

I rather hope not, but it may be no coincidence that the OP hasn't posted since he asked about this some months ago.

I discovered that: It's impossible to talk about poop without someone making a "bullshit" pun there's gold in there (presumably significantly more in some cases than others; I quite like Goldschläger.) The nitrogen in poop is almost certainly worth more than the gold.

I used to think there were at least something like 7.5 billion sentient animals. Having read this thread, I'm less sure.

Oddly, I too was unsure. That's why I asked.

Very cool. What happens if someone pokes it with a stick?

Without the relativistic corrections the GPS clocks would be out by about 38 microseconds per day. Light travels about 1 foot in a nanosecond, so that error amounts to something like 38,000 feet per day. About 7 miles or 11 km per day.After a few years, you wouldn't even know what side of the planet you were on. Since the specification for GPS is of the order of 10 metres, it would be out of specification when the error reached about 30 ns. That's about a thousandth of a day. So, "completely unstable" is probably an understatement. "Useless" might be a better word.