John Cuthber

So it's trail by Hollywood. You think that's democracy? There's a collection of problems with lie detectors. One of the big ones is that if someone believes something to be true then a lie detector will support that belief- regardless of the facts. So if she believes she was treated improperly or unfairly, she would pass the "lie detector" test. However that says practically nothing about what a jury would consider to be inappropriate or unfair. It says even less about what would have been considered improper in 1991. He knows that "lie detectors" are unreliable (That's why they don't stand up in court) so why would he take the risk of it falsely labelling him a criminal? Would you? (Before you answer that, remember that typical accuracies are of the order of 50%)

"Lie detector is just a single step from reading mind." In that both are science fiction "Trying to discredit lie detector is like trying to discredit finger prints, or trying to discredit DNA tests, but lie detection tests are more reliable." Except that only one is not accepted by the courts as evidence

It is, to be fair, unrealistic to expect all our politicians to be sound scientists. The best that we can do is expect them to listen to the views of those who do understand it. So the question is; how well are they doing that? And the answer- at least in the UK at the moment- is that they are deliberately sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lah lah la I'm not listening". Yes, really, they have explicitly pointed out that they do not want scientists to speak on such things. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-clause-to-be-inserted-into-grant-agreements

How romantic. And hardly a "choice"- it's possibly an outcome, but that's not the same thing.

This thread was started in 2004 by someone who hasn't posted here since 2005. After 40 odd pages, it seems we may be more likely to find an end to the universe than an end to this thread. Is it time to lay it to rest? The conventional answer to the question is that space ends (or starts, depending which way you are facing) about 100 km from the Earth's surface.

The dissociation of NaHCO3 into Na+ and HCO3- ions is essentially complete when it dissolves. But the dissociation of the HCO3- into H+ and CO32- isn't.

Former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, though her policies suggested that she may have been a failed human, had a chemistry degree from the University of Oxford. The current PM- whose policies are worse, has a degree in philosophy politics and economics, also from Oxford. Sounds like dumbing down to me..

There was, the UK in the 60s and 70s did this (as did quite a lot of "The West") . The rich got together and stopped it.

And safety is about things that reduce them. So you still need to explain at least a couple of things: Why is this not a contradiction "I don't own or carry guns for safety. I own and carry them for self defense. " And you still need to answer this Through what possible mechanism?"

Imagine that I offered you a lot of money to love Donald Trump, would you be able to decide to do so? Similarly, most people would still love their mothers- even if someone asked them not to. You don't get to choose who you love.

I'm amused by the idea that you choose whom you love.

Through what possible mechanism? It doesn't make sense, no matter how any times you say it. Defence is about safety. If you were safe you wouldn't need defending.

Thank you for explaining why we have a stand off- it's because people like you will leap to the wrong conclusion, rather than remembering that "you" is a plural as well as a singular. The relevant variation on the theme of that question would be " do you have any evidence that those who staunchly oppose gun ownership are not responsible for shooting children?" And the answer is " yes- they don't have guns"

I strongly suspect that adding ammonium sulphate would give you a solution of ammonium sulphate in wet glycerol. Boiling out the water is a better bet. Vacuum distillation is better yet- but needs more complex equipment.

Don't get a hammer, get a mirror. Have a look at yourself. It takes two to bring about deadlock. This isn't gridlock, it's more like two drivers meeting on a narrow lane with no passing place. Nobody is going anywhere until one reverses. Why should the one who isn't killing kids be the one to back up? So, by your own acknowledgement, nobody should carry a gun "for safety". Feel free to stop doing so, and to explain this to others.

One way to break it would be for the side which owns the guns that kill the kids to accept responsibility for that and stop insisting that it's the other side that should change. In particular, they should stop insisting that their opponents stop opposing them. Are you going to do that? Because until you do so you are maintaining the gridlock, and maintaining the death toll. "Where do you suppose they got that idea? " Did you rule out NRA/ Republican propaganda? "And one of them is chosen " Others were chosen too, but they were unconstitutional. The fundamental point you are missing is that you only get gridlock when people are pushing in two directions a,d it won't go away until one of them backs down. Whyshouldn't the side that's killing the kids be the one to back down?

And it had been going so well; until he decided that the best thing to do was to blame the victim for their own death- and then say it's because of skin colour. All the real research has shown that- to the extent that race has a meaning, and that there are differences between races- those differences are small. Yet somehow, when he's there they all conform to handy stereotypes. And he says we are the irrational ones because the best way to get gun control is not to try to get gun control.

I'm going to get lynched for this but... It depends on what you mean by "nurse". The modern version of the profession is a paramedic of sorts. the "old fashioned" version empties bad pans; washes patients, and folds sheets really neatly. Only one of those stereotypes needs an IQ that's higher than average.

If I had been the interviewer, I'd have been more impressed if you told me that you carry your tea with somethinglike this so it doesn't spill so easily. http://www.qwerkity.com/aegean-tray-prod13063/

How representative are those "representatives"? If I was voting it would probably be for Sanders, but essentially "anyone but Trump" which suggests that he as done his job. Next to Trump, even Cruz looks electable.

Well, that's a fair analysis. Accidents should kill essentially, just as many boys as girls and (pro rata) just as many blacks as whites. It looks like many of those shootings are intentional. That rules out trigger guards as a way to stop them because, if you wan to shoot someone, you will obviously remove the trigger guard. They will still stop a good fraction of "heat of the moment" shootings and "kid playing with daddy's gun" shootings. That's a useful start.

I think we need to define "accidental". Few of those children were deliberately targeted as in "There's little johnny- I'm going to shoot him". Some were "I'm going down all guns blazing and I don't care who I kill" and some were either a child playing with a gun and killing themselves or random "he dropped a gun and it went off " accidents. In the cases where the intention was to kill a child, and the shooter was themselves a child it's difficult to say whether or not they had legally recognised responsibility anyway. At one level, the response needed to address the different modes of death are different. At another level- not having guns would do it. But, apparently the "best" strategy there is to be defeatist and not try, OK, so what he said is "It doesn't matter how many people think reliable and universal background checks, trigger locks in family homes, legal standards for responsible ownership and carry, for example, would be a good idea in a better world (It's over 85% of the NRA membership even, last I checked): they aren't going to hand political power over to people who think like that, talk like that, and preen themselves in public on a moral and ethical superiority they nowhere near possess. Because such people are a threat." Now, at best that's a tangential reference to what he might suggests- it's what he says that others might suggest. And, of course, he then destroys his own credibility by saying "Because such people are a threat.". Well, a threat to whom- apart from the gun indystry? But never mind, since ewe now have some concrete proposals let's have a look at them (I suspect it's look at them again since they have been raised before) Here they are (and I'm not saying these are all the possible ideas he's put forward but...) universal background checks, trigger locks in family homes, Legal standards for responsible ownership and carry, OK, the last of those is, as far as I can see, unconstitutional. It's prefect reasonable but some dimwitted gun enthusiast somewhere is going to object when someone tells him that he's simply not responsible enough to on a gun. And he (or his NRA sponsored lawyer) will say that he is entitled to bear arms under the constitution. And he will win the case- because that is what the 2nd amendment says. The same goes for the first of them. What's the point of "universal background checks" if those who "fail" the check can still appeal to their right under the constitution? Then there's "trigger locks in family homes, " Well, it's really not my field. Are these always available for any and all guns? Are they going to be paid for by the state? (I suspect the lawyers will have a field day with "family homes" What happens when little Johnny is visiting his uncle's place?- but that's beside the point) It's progress and it would almost certainly reduce the number of kids getting shot. How many dead kids are acceptable? When do you stop tightening up on security/ control?

Do you realise that saying we should abandon gun control guarantees to gridlock it. How could there be progress on it when you say we shouldn't even try? Wow! You really said that? 9/11

No offence intended, but your mother and cousin are not independent witnesses. We are.

So, your "reasonable" approach to gun control is this "you probably have to set the gun control approach aside for a while " Because the suggestion that people can actually do without guns is "arrogant cluelessness" and that "You guys are wrong. You are not thinking well." Well, that's a "remarkable" point of view, but let's run with it for a minute. You say "There are plenty of other approaches ..." List a few, and explain why they will stop kids getting shot (Ideally, why they will do so better than not having guns). If you do it really well we might even not file a forum rules complaint about this " against all appearances have as your actual goal a significant reduction in gun injuries to children, " Because, when push comes to shove, saying that keeping guns is the best way to stop kids getting shot is plainly illogical in a society without guns it's plain that nobody gets shot. But never mind that for the minute,- I repeat the simple challenge. You say "There are plenty of other approaches ..." List a few, and explain why they will stop kids getting shot (Ideally, why they will do so better than not having guns).