John Cuthber

He never won 50% of the vote. He got in with a promise of building a wall, getting Mexico to pay and jailing Hillary. He failed to do any of those things. He really should be a complete wash-out. Even those who voted for him should realise that he was a con-man. Interestingly, the Republican party still thinks he's their best hope. They are probably right. That says a lot. It's interesting to compare him with Boris who won a "landslide " 42% on the promise of getting brexit done. Still hasn't finished it. Is considered by the Conservatives to be their best hope... They are probably right. That says a lot.

That's a rather narrow definition of "we". Plenty of cultures disagree. And... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Sematary_(1989_film)

We are discussing a very important part of science. The importance of mutually agreed, clear definitions.

Eggs are crunchy- they have a shell. The thing with chicken DAN predates that shell. There's a 50:50 chance that the first chicken didn't lay eggs. We won't get a chance to ask him.

Because it implicitly refers to chicken eggs rather than, for example, insect eggs. Otherwise, it's a silly question. We might consider that there's some combination of DNA that marks the difference between "chicken" and "pre chicken". That presumably arose as a combination of genes from the parents of the "first chicken" (possibly assisted by some mutation). And that DNA was in place, in the fertilised cells inside its mother before a yolk and shell formed round it and it became an egg. So the chicken came first.

Because, in fact, they give mixed results. Plants are very variable. The lack of a good profit margin is also a factor. Did you know the prototype statin was derived from a fungus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_yeast_rice

Show me skeletons, not quotes from old books.

What do you think is behind the development of electric vehicles?

We answered. It can't-, or, at best, it can't usefully- replace lead. Consider yourself better informed. The s orbitals have a non zero electron density at the nucleus. With some isotopes, they sometimes "fall in". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture Have you got to grips with the fact that metals are chemicals yet?

Yes they are. It shows.

In the context of using it in a battery, that has to be the dumbest statement I have heard in a while. What did you think you meant? Uranium chemistry is complicated; I'm not saying it would be impossible to make a battery with it. A flow cell battery might be the best bet; something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery But the high atomic weight of uranium is a drawback, not an advantage. That's why lithium is so popular; less mass to carry around for a given number of electrons. However, none of that could possibly outweigh the problems that uranium is toxic and radioactive. (with even bigger problems for uranium mining waste)

I also try to avoid self referencing when I write spreadsheets- and for the same reason.

A large part of the job of the colon is to remove water from the gut contents before they are expelled. If it doesn't do its job, you get the runs. Stomach acids will not attack, ceramics, glass or most plastics or even some metals, such as copper. They don't even destroy tomato pips.

No.

Alchemy didn't really work. Nobody ever turned base metals into gold. They couldn't.

So, we must act, right here right now and torture you into giving us your plan for world domination.

OK, so if the greater common good requires us to torture people, who gets to decide which ones? Should we be waterboarding you to get you to admit to your plans to take over the world? I realise it's unlikely but.. as you said. "Wrong. It's more like saying that while any chance exists in saving innocent lives from kidnappers, terrorists, and criminals, then we are morally obliged to use them."

That's not what I asked.

It's a chance and we are morally obliged to try it. Is the source of your moral stance there the "greatest common good"?

He knew that at the outset. He chose to carry on. It's a pretty robust reason really, and it's not an "excuse".

But you never really know when it does. So, we lower ourselves to moral failure... just in case something that never really worked, suddenly does. Because the victim knows that lying is an option.

If you don't get that outcome- and you won't- all you have done is torture someone for no reason. You do understand that people lie, don't you?

Torture only has one outcome- the person tells you what you want to hear. That's because, if they don't, you keep hurting them until they do. If the outcome is hearing what you want, then there's no real point to the torture. You can always simply pretend that you did it- with the inevitable outcome. They said what you wanted to hear. The outcome is just the same. So you can get that outcome without torturing people. So, what are the circumstances where it's right to do something that's obviously bad, and never necessary?

To whom is this apparent?

Two years from sequencing and a year after launch, the vaccine is still doing a fairly good job.