John Cuthber

It can ruin your lungs; replacing shoes and clothes is easy...

I wouldn't. That't the whole point of encryption.

Probably nothing. But how do you decrypt the data once you have read it?

If Apple's stance is "We don't know if we should do this or not- lets take it to court, have a proper debate and come to a legally valid decision" then I think that's exactly the right thing to do. I'm also reminded of a software developer making a comment something like. They want me to make software that is absolutely secure - unless they have a court order- and then it's open. Well a court order is a piece of paper and I can't write software whose function depends on the existence or non existence of a piece of paper.

Comments made the thread here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93578-viability-of-a-gaseous-propane-powered-engine/?p=906707 also apply to this one

Nope.

When you see mpg figures for LPG engines they are calculated as miles per gallon of liquid. So the price of a gallon of the gas is irrelevant.

So, still got nothing to say about competent Republicans then. Perhaps you could start another thread to discuss these matters.

The problem here is that you are ignoring the fact that a litre of propane weighs about 2 grams and litre of petrol weighs about 700 grams. Since the energy per gram is roughly the same you are getting hundreds of times less energy for ten times less cash. On a mile per mile basis the propane is roughly ten times as expensive.

The price of petrol is mainly tax. Also, the cost per gallon isn't the right metric. How much per kilometre?

If you want to compare prices you should probably do it on a per kilogram basis (or better yet a per Joule, or per mile basis). None of that matters since much of the price of gasoline is tax. If people started using propane instead then the government would tax propane instead.

You are assuming that the Democrats are actually going to do what they are told. However I accept that you have a point. The Democrats are bent too. And, if you search this site I'm sure you will find that I have already pointed out that talking about the Left in American politics is absurd because what you have is a choice between very very Right and very Right. Thanks for reinforcing my earlier point. If Peter and Paul are arguing, proving that Peter is wrong does not prove that Paul is right. However when it comes down to it, this thread is about Republicans and it doesn't matter (from that perspective) if the Democrats are the Devil incarnate, does it?

Here's an odd thing to post. If you google "French knitting" "uv reactor" you will find it brings up an ISO stadard for measuring formaldehyde. A coil tends to spring apart too much.

I think this quote from wiki pretty much sums it up "There are anecdotal accounts but no scientific evidence for existence of the Akashic records" Well, if they don't exist it hardly matters if they are true or false.

Ted Cruz is intelligent. He doesn't let it show "many of the alarmists on global warming, they've got a problem because the science doesn't back them up. And in particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there's been zero warming, none whatsoever." Ditto Ryan "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.". and also "It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand." So, he's a flip flopper of the first order. No wonder you think he looks good- he will, it seems, say anything to keep the audience happy. Re " will not vote for anyone who has Neocon ties" Does that mean that, if we can show a link between the neocons and the Republicans you won't vote for any of them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)#Neoconservatives

My point is that being a Republican makes you ipso facto not a competent candidate. They are the party that wants f=to govern, but things the government should do nothing. Your question is like asking "what are the steps to rebuild the bank robbers and murderers party?" so that we can have a multi party system. It's not a matter of finding the right answer- because it's the wrong question.

We are still waiting to see why you don't think that's psychosomatic.

Do you realise that all the evidence indicates that it was always very common. It's nothing new. It's practically universal in humans, and common on other animals. The reason it's accepted is that everybody does it. " I think even science is afraid to step up against both porn and masturbation, " Why should it? Science might "stand up against" junk food- because the actual evidence shows that junk food is bad. But the evidence shows that masturbation is good in some cases, and not bad in essentially any cases. Why would science stand up against something good?

The thing about infrastructure is that you have to pay for it up front, but you only get to use it much later. In essence the Republicans are failing the marshmallow test and are thus behaving like 5 year olds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

No. It's the way you think.

The American system hasn't understood the idea that the judiciary should be separate from the legislature. I don't know why not, but I think a lot of the citizens would be better off if it were.

There is a traditional answer to that. Anyone who thinks that the benefits are adequate should demonstrate this by living on them. And it's notable how often that challenge isn't taken up by the Right wing who propose the view that the payments are adequate. Here's a fairly recent example http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/01/iain-duncan-smith-live-benefits However that's largely political rhetoric. It is perfectly possible to tally up the actual cost of living and plenty of justified estimates are available. What makes it even clearer that the Republicans are not fit to govern is stuff like this (I know that, strictly, minimum wage isn't a benefit- but it is a mechanism whereby the "rich get richer" issue is addressed.) In 2007 when Bush was president 62 current republican members of congress voted to raise the minimum wage. In 2013, under Obama, none of them did. So, asked the same question, but in different political circumstances, those Republicans gave different answers. Whichever answer is actually "right" from any objective point of view, they got it wrong, either in 2007 or in 2013. They are playing political games with the US workforce. That's "not competent" to govern.

I didn't know the test had a name.

If I ask you to think of a number, double it and add ten then tell me the result I can work out what number you first thought of by applying the reverse process- subtract ten then halve it. I can do that because the function that I asked you to apply ha a properly defined inverse. If I tell you to think of a number and then subtract the fifth power from the seventh, then tell me the result I can't (reliably) say what number you thought of. However if I asked you to add the fifth and seventh powers then tell me the answer I can work out which number you chose in the first place- I can look on the graph.

I didn't say it was all that a government had to do. (what I actually said was "Well, there are obviously lots of answers to that.") However it is one thing that governments need to do, so a an individual, or a party, which refuses to do it is not competent to govern. Granted, a government that refuses to protect the environment, provide infrastructure and a whole lot of other things is also incompetent. But my point is that any one requirement that is not met is sufficient to show that they don't meet the requirements. And that rules out the Republicans- both individually and collectively- from being competent to govern.