John Cuthber

Come to think of it, there's nothing much you can do about it. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion that all the candidates are "criminals" in the sense that they all broke the speed limit while driving, of drank alcohol while under age or whatever. Technically, even without an accusation- never mind a conviction- they all committed some sort of crime. So exactly what might you do to stop them winning? Not a lot. So, when it comes down to it the reply to "I can't have a criminal or a socialist win. " is "Oh yes you can!"; if that's what the elections say then that's what you get. Of course, you can choose not to vote for anyone who you don't wish to support- that's your democratic right. And, if you like you can turn up and write "none of the above" on the ballot paper (or whatever the electronic equivalent might be). If you want to avoid voting for criminals or Socialists then, as has been pointed out, don't vote. (or get a grip on what "socialist" actually means ans stop pretending that Clinton is one.)

One of the reasons put forward for banning Mr Trump from the UK was that his views on race etc might be considered criminal here.

I suspect that, a lot of the time, good spelling indicates the use of a browser with a spell checker built in. While I accept that I'm probably influenced by bad grammar and spelling, I'd like to think that I base more of my opinion on what is written than on how it is written.

Pretty much the same here, except that the "solution" they offer fro poor services is to sell them off to their rich friends (often American corporations) who will be more "efficient". For the record the US citizens pay roughly twice as much for their healthcare and don't have significantly better outcomes; by some measures- like age at death- they do worse. They did a similar thing with the prison service- selling it largely to a group called G4S who, among other things, got the contract to provide security for the London Olympics. A job they botched up so badly that the army got called in to do the job. G4S are still winning government contracts in spite of being demonstrably incompetent.

Just in case anyone was wondering, the Republicans' counterparts on this side of the pond are no better. Here's how the current Prime Minister reacted to the leader of the opposition asking about the National Health Service (which is suffering as a result of current policy). http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pmqs-david-camerons-behaviour-was-a-lot-uglier-than-jeremy-corbyns-suit-a6893496.html I'd be really embarrassed if I had voted for that rabble.

OK, so how else do you test for supernatural intervention? So, it's fine to doubt if, like all of us sometimes, you are pissed off. Fine words, but still not testabl.

When you put the stuff in water it will dissociate into Na ions, HPO4 ions and water, whichever hydrate you start with. And, once you make it up to the right volume with water you will end up with the same solution, whichever hydrate you start with.

Really, I must have heard about some other books Luke 4:12 "And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" Matthew 4:7 Jesus replied, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Deuteronomy 6:16 "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah"

Without doing the experiment, it's impossible to say. However a lot of enzymes are remarkably specific in their actions.

It may be possible to remove unwanted stuff with enzymes.

It's not testable, so it's not a theory.

There are lots of different polysaccharides and to dissolve some of them- like cellulose- you need to get rather aggressive. To be sure of dissolving all of them will be a problem in its own right/. I doubt it's possible to do that without destroying DNA. What are you trying to do?

So, rather more than 9 pages then...

To be awesome actually means to inspire awe. (And it isn't always a good thing) Mr Riggle, on the other hand, inspires a recollection of this sort of thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mr._Men_The_Complete_Collection_(2010),_bottom_cover.pdf

Yes we do, Unless we are talking about the idea of "close your eyes and imagine a hippo- how many legs does it have" as seeing, then there's no sensible debate here The only thing you see is light.

All the people that I have seen campaigning for an exit are self interested multimillionaires or "Little Englander" types and I'd not trust either further than I can spit. Also I keep seeing things like this https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/cambridge-v-c-warns-brexit-would-isolate-uk-researchers/2019825.article or this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-brexit-would-harm-higher-education-and-research-universities-claim-10417379.html and I rather suspect that these people have a better idea of what is good for science than, for example, Boris.

How many pages does it take before we accept that the question that forms the topic's title has been answered in the negative?

It should be possible to grow lemons at home- you may have been unlucky in finding that the ones you bought some low fertility hybrid. https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/grow-your-own/fruit/citrus?type=f My dad has a loquat tree growing in the garden - started as a seed, but it's been growing OK and producing fruit. On the other hand it's not a tropical species.

Where on that scale does "We have looked for evidence of an internal structure of the electron, but so far we have no found any." fall? On a related note, what about these statements "My bedroom contains no tigers according to currently known mainstream physics. "My bedroom contains no tigers" and "I have looked for tigers in my bedroom and found none". The real question is, do I need to take a gun to bed with me, and the answer in all three cases is "no". Perhaps we can get back to the topic now (assuming that Chriss tells us what that actually is).

Well, if nothing else, someone has to pay the editor. Essentially there are three groups who can pay: The authors- that's vanity publishing and not really suited to academic work The readers can pay- that's the traditional model- or the advertisers can pay- and that's got a problem with conventional publishing because the market for journal articles is small, and often "slow". The reader might be looking at a paper years after it's published and the ads are out of date by then. Electronic publishing can get round that to a degree, but do you really want your journal articles full of spam? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I read them because they are often interesting and well written. Do you realise that you just posted that question on a science discussion forum site where people talk about stuff for interest, rather than their job?

Without the payments, how will the journals cover their costs?

Yes- generally rather a large one.

Hang on. St John's wort is dubious- but then- so are most of the licensed drugs for depression. Homoeopathy is a joke in poor taste. It's just a means to exploit the vulnerable. Are you muddling homoeopathy with herbalism?

Some people choose to get off their heads on one drug, some choose another. This affects the competency of republicans because...?

On what grounds? Or, to put it another way, oh no they can't. That the police behave unlawfully isn't quite the same thing as a legal right.