John Cuthber

People are mainly water. Water is a very strong absorber near 10 microns (about the wavelength we would be emitting). On that basis I strongly suspect that melanin can't make much difference. Also, it's not when you are dissipating 70 Watts that you are at risk of overheating. It's when you are running at 700 Watts. I suspect that the widely held belief that melanin is used as a UV screen is more viable

What does "by nature" mean in the context of human behaviour?

I think it shows that you don't understand biology.

Radiative cooling is small at these sort of temperatures- especially when surrounded by stuff at similar temperatures. The rate of heat loss will depend (slightly) on how well the skin absorbs far infra red. That's not going to be closely correlated with colour which depends on how well it absorbs visible light.

What does that mean?

Come to think of it, a patent examiner looking at your suggestion that people might use a robot to clean stuff up would probably be aware of this "Prior art". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymethylpentene

Nobody questions that you made the suggestion. Since we probably accept that you didn't copy the idea we accept that you are an inventor. What we question is whether you were the only inventor, the first inventor or- most importantly- the relevant inventor. You have provided no evidence of that. Given the evidence, a patent examiner might form the opinion that perhaps someone else- perhaps the truck driver- might be the inventor. He would ask the driver. The driver might very well say "My boss told me..." Someone would actually check. Most importantly- they would start checking at the right end of the chain.

Founded so that a maniacal king could continue screwing around, and the basic reason why the UK has yet to break the link between the state religion and the legislative system. Somehow I think humanism looks like a better template for behaviour

He was, and the irony amused me- which is why I cited him. However, there's a much bigger issue here. Was the idea of a soul ever seriously "bunked" in the first place? If not, what is there to "debunk"? It's like asking if science has debunked the Hobbit.

You would be in well documented company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham#Efficient_reasoning

(Cough) "Is it rational to deny that humans and other apes share a common ancestor?"

Was that meant to be a serious question? It's got nothing much to do with the topic but...

Well, you seem to be half right. I am right, and there are atheists in foxholes. https://ffrf.org/outreach/atheists-in-foxholes

If a tree falls in the forest or under 3 feet of dirt, it still makes a noise. People are better at noting things than they usually recognise. It may not have been a factor- but just because you didn't notice it, doesn't mean it wasn't.

Well, I'm not a Canadian; and I think you are a jerk. But, more importantly, if you don't like us- for whatever reason (rational or otherwise) feel free to leave- we won't try to stop you

Trying to scientifically debunk the idea of a soul is like trying to arm-wrestle a cloud.

How many people tried dowsing, didn't find anything + didn't post. (my brother+ I tried it as kids- no use at all.) And that's before we consider that a leaky pipe makes a noise.

Beijing games?

Boric acid a weak acid. Concrete is actually quite a strong base (in both senses) The tiles are likely to be near neutral.

Well, it's not entirely wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptorchidism

He makes people mistype things like act.

Maybe we should ask them why we think that the West is Satan? My guess would be that (1) They have been told this by their religious leaders and also (2) because we cat like Satan. If wed stopped doing 2 we might make it harder for 1 to work.

Because the institution supports people who do evil things. Here's on example- but the problem isn't unique to any single institution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

i wish