John Cuthber

If it did, the species would be extinct.

Well, I haven't any kids, but perhaps I have more sympathy than some folk here. I'm nerdy- by any standards*- and I don't eat fruit, or any veg apart from potatoes, cereals and nuts. My mum gave up trying to change that when I was about 3 or 4. I'm in my sixth decade, and not dead yet. I can offer a couple of things One is the evidence that it's possible to stop things turning to mush http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2011/12/14/143722936/how-the-army-made-a-sandwich-that-stays-fresh-for-two-years The other is that the tubes of vitamin tablets I buy have a "stopper" that contains a desiccant- I'm guessing it's silica gel. You might be able to "reuse" them to keep stuff crunchy. I don't know how well it would work- but it's probably worth a try. * For example I remember stories about long life chicken sandwiches from half a decade ago, though I can't remember the names of some of the people with whom I work .

The hexagon does not go round the circle- it goes through it and crops bits off. To go round it you would need to use the hexagon that circumscribes a circle. That's rather bigger http://geometryatlas.com/entries/190

It's nothing to do with the units. Imagine a planet where one hemisphere is sea and the other is land. To go round the sea you have to sail round the circumference. To sail in a "straight" line across the sea from one point on the coast to the furthest point you have to sail half the circumference (taking a shorter route would need a submarine). So, for this sea the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is 2. In that world, "pi" is two for a big enough circle. For a small circle the sea is approximately flat so "pi" would be 3.14159..... Somewhere in between, there is a size of circular sea where the "diameter" is exactly a third of the circumference. If you wanted to, you could calculate the size of the sea that meets this criterion (in terms of the radius of the planet). And it would still be just as pointless as pretending that a hexagon is circular or that pi is 3..

The evidence holds sway. You seem to be sticking to your view in spite of it. That's religion, not science.

Another pointless exercise would be to calculate the size of a planet here the distance (measured on the bulging surface of the sea) would be 10 units and the circumference was 30 units.

There is dissent about things, until we find out the answer- by a method that we agree about. To not realise that is to utterly fail to understand science to a point where it's hardly worth your while talking about it. It's like me trying to discuss knitting patterns, for a Ferrari , in Chinese, with a pine tree. Why are you even posting here?

Oh yes it is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36356245

According to the graphic that Endy0816 posted, in about a quarter of cases they decided to overrule the state. But the state was enforcing the law. So, in a quarter of cases this process lets companies ignore the law. How democratic is that?

Lets start with the crassly obvious. Do you believe that it is possible to be intelligent and blind? OK, now imagine that your parents never learned to write. How much practice would you have had at doing anagrams? And if the solutions to those anagrams were things like "Bach" and "Holst", do you think your social background might make a difference about how easlily you solved them?

The SD is not fixed at 10. So, before you go calling people liars, perhaps you should check your facts. Estimates vary between about 13 and 15. If it's 15 then an IQ of 160 or more is a 4 sigma outlier with odds of about 1 in 16000. Unlikely, but possible- especially when you consider how the tests are biassed. Also, it's not a normal distribution- though it's pretty close for most people. I doubt there are exactly as many folks with 160 IQs as with 40 and if the distribution isn't symmetrical then it's not normal. The system is pretty much meaningless- it measures your ability to do IQ tests. It was probably just about fit for its original purpose- spotting those schoolchildren who were falling behind so they could be given extra help- but it's a daft thing to brag about. Also, I don't think you are right about this " Any IQ score is relative to the group the score is normalized to. A high IQ among a sample of dunces might not be worth much, and an average IQ at among an elite group of intellectuals might be quite impressive. " They are normalised- in principle,to the whole human population (though in practice, rather badly so- because of cultural effects).

"Guys please stop posting that you have a 160+ IQ." I hadn't noticed that anyone was.

It's hard to know if his writing style is a linguistic thing, or just because he's trying to cover up that fact that he knows he's talking nonsense. I started off giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm revising that policy and assuming he's just a troll.

Also, don't post the same thing twice.

What mechanism is in place for that opposition to actually stop the process which is carried out without public involvement or consultation? What happens if those goods are dangerously faulty? Do they get taken back for a refund? Is the buyer legally entitled to that refund (and to other costs/ damages?) What would happen if the seller suddenly was allowed to say that the legislation that protects the buyer is a burden on his business and he is able to claim the money back from the government? That's where TTIP is heading.

Context has nothing to do with it. You made a lot of claims that are absurd. Either retract them or justify them. As far as I can tell you have got it backwards- FEM is easier to do (computationally) than calculus. But it is calculus that gives the right answer. The FEM systems produce approximations. Things like this "Said differently, I don't hear them all praising calculus. " won't do. It's not the same thing said differently- it is saying something totally different. It's like saying that business has abandoned chairs because you don't hear business praising how useful chairs are. Well, of course you don't. That's because it is so obvious that nobody needs to say it. So, once again... You made a lot of claims that are absurd. Either retract them or justify them.

I mean are you talking about this guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr the reason I ask is that - he's old- to the point of being dead- and some of his ideas might (like Darwin's) be thought of as superseded. For example, according to WIKI "Mayr rejected the idea of a gene-centered view of evolution " Now there are problems with taking that point of view- we know that some genes are involved, directly, in our evolution. Also, if it's the genome as a whole that is responsible, then small scale traits like skin colour can't be important. So, as your definition, you have chosen that defined by someone who doesn't believe that your apparent viewpoint (that races are meaningful) makes sense. And I'm glad you think it's stupid to use a chart of skin colour to determine "race", but you did say "Visual inspection". What did you mean by that?

Can I just check on something? When you talk of Mayr, do you mean the dead guy who doesn't believe that genes are the basis for evolution? And where you say "Visual inspection." do you mean, essentially the colour chart idea that's so daft it got parodied on a cartoon show?

Yes, but you don't do it like this

I wonder if anyone has an opinion on this question: "Does race matter?". If there are no circumstances where it matters what race someone is, then it's difficult to see the term as having any practical meaning.

That might be roughly equivalent to saying that US citizens are pro Trump. Many might be, but should know better. It does not benefit US citizens any more than it does EU or other citizens.

Prove that. Simply cite an example of where calculus gets the wrong answer. You have repeatedly claimed that calculus doesn't work. "I am sorry to have to tell you it's corrupt." "Industry has dumped calculus" "Industry & top consulting companies do NOT recommend calculus" "If you need an exact, accurate answer, all the time, then calculus will NOT do!" and so on. But you have completely failed to back up that claim. Until you do so, nobody is going to take you seriously. If someone posted that "Eighteen is not a number" would you expect that claim to be taken seriously without evidence? Well, your claim makes no more sense than that.

As far as I can tell, only big business gains from TTIP. The consumers lose out because the corporations can sue governments for loss of income due to lost sales due, in turn, to consumer protection legislation. That's why they have to negotiate about it in secret- if the public knew more about it, we would be outraged. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

If it's an axiom, you can't test it. So you have just pointed out, quite clearly that (1) you don't understand how science works and (2) that this thread is pointless.

Or, as they are more widely known, "people".