John Cuthber

"In other words, constantly lit LEDs produce more lumens than pulsed ones ? To the eye, will a room feel brighter if not pulsed ? " It depends. The eye will roughly respond to the average power. You can pulse a LED at higher power than you can run it continuously. LEDs don't have a real threshold- the brightness varies with the current i.e. roughly exponentially with the voltage drop.

James Randi is old and he retired.

So, you agree that (for some reason) "sane well considered gun control" is favoured by 80 or 90% of the population, It must be being opposed by someone or it would already have happened. So the people opposing gun control are not sane. Remind me again, which side of the fence are you on?

For a given temperature methanol is likely to be quite a bit cheaper but more toxic. Ethanol is somewhere between the two in terms of effectiveness, but it's expensive- though it's probably rather less toxic. If you want something that evaporates readily without a residue, then the alcohols are fine, but if you want it not to boil too easily then something like glycol is better- but it's relatively expensive, not very effective (at a given %m/m) and also rather toxic. There are a whole bunch of trade-offs that you need to consider. Unless you know what the circumstances are, there's no way to know the "right" answer.

"No, John It's the other way around. For the most part the person who intends to do you harm needs a gun because you just might have one. " A lot of arguments about "cause and effect" can be resolved by looking at how they phenomenon must have started. According to your belief someone must have invented the gun to defend himself against a threat from a man who had a gun that didn't exist. Would you like to think that through again? Re the "criminals will have guns, even if they are illegal" Yep, that's pretty close to what we have here so, if the public report that someone has a gun they call the police. the police turn up and either arrest them or shoot them. Both options suit me just fine. "Criminals avoid those they suspect have guns thereby reducing attacks." Anyone who could reliably make that judgement would be able to get a much better job. Seriously, how you you imagine they know? Do you think all criminals are psychic or something? "If criminals are so good at shooting first, why do 75% percent or more of homicide victims have long criminal records?" Because they hang out with the wrong sort of people. So what? Also, you forget that, in almost all of those cases the "man with a criminal record who got shot" was shot by someone who shot first and was a criminal. Almost all those cases prove my point. Are you not reading through what you write before you post it? "Forgot this one in my last post. It's not that the constitution can be changed to get what you want John, the constitution must be changed. Good luck with that." Yep, I'd need luck. Or maybe I just need people to stop coming up with total bollocks like the stuff you have in a desperate attempt to keep their toys to defend their paranoia. "Take the guns away from the good people and more good people will be shot, and if not shot beaten to death or victimized in other ways." That's a strawman (again) since nobody is suggesting that we only take guns from good people. (Yeah- we all know the kneejerk reaction is that criminals won't obey the gun control laws. Those of us who have been paying attention will also know that it's not true) "Maybe you haven't been reading John Cuthber's posts. All he talks about is taking guns away from everyone. " Plainly a lie "The new Presidential law makes every gun owner a gun dealer. " Plainly a lie So, once again, the pro-gun lobby is proving iNow's point; all they can do is spout bollocks.

It's not me that's unwilling to follow the constitution; it's Americans. That's why it has been amended. But that hasn't led to them abolishing it, or amending it every day/ So in the real world, a change to the constitution doesn't lead to anarchy as you are trying to pretend. As I said, you are relying on fallacy.

It doesn't need to correct every paper as long as t gets things right in the end. So re the title of the thread. "Is doubt of climate science the right place to start?" It doesn't really matter where you start, you should end with very little doubt.

"Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina has relatively liberal weapon laws compared to the rest of Europe. Weapons are regulated by "Weapons and Ammunition Law".[73] People over 18 are allowed to own guns, but must be issued a permit. People with criminal history, mental disorders, history of alcohol and illegal substance abuse, cannot be issued a permit. There is a thorough background check prior to license approval (neighbors and family). To obtain a permit, the applicant must complete a course and pass a written multiple choice exam. Police have the last word on the matter, and there is appeal possible, to police captain only. When at home, the guns must be kept in a "safe place", and owner irresponsibility could lead to gun confiscation by police. With a permit issued, a person is allowed to carry their gun concealed. Pepper spray is allowed to females only and must be registered with police." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Bosnia-Herzegovina The Berlin wall didn't fall because the populous had ready access to guns. You don't need guns to overthrow an oppressive government. (of course, it's better not to vote for one in the first place- so perhaps you should vote out any politician who thinks that banning three necked flasks or gay marriage is a reasonable act.

If I had I'd not have posted it on a website. Seriously, I think you are asking if I have accepted something without much question just because it supported what I already believed. Well, as you say, it's a very human trait and yes I have done it. But here's the vitally important difference. Not in a peer reviewed paper- because that's what peer review is for.

Once again, they are beyond parody. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ericrosswood/your_child_may_be_forced_to_show_their_genitals_in_school_if_this_law_is_passed

Well, two isn't "many" in the real world. Also, it seems that the only right we Europeans have lost as a (possible) result of gun control is the right to own a gun. That's a circular argument at best.and once again it shows that the pro-gun lobby have to resort to fallacy to seek to bolster their point of view. So, all those things are in place are they? If not perhaps you could introduce them, but every time someone tries a bunch of people start shouting about tyranny etc. Sounds familiar somehow.

Well, since you feel that while asleep at home you can aim and fire a gun you have clearly demonstrated your grasp of reality. But the point you missed is the one I made earlier. If the other guy has a gun- and plans to use it and you have a gun- but he takes you by surprise, your gun will still be in your pocket when you die. It doesn't matter who is bigger. And re the constitution. I'm happy to never mention it again, never mind "bitching" about it. Indeed, you may recall that I said as much earlier. You keep ignoring the reality that I have no gun and I have liberty. And that's the same for essentially all the 70 million people with whom I share this island- it's not luck; it's proper gun control. You should think about it.

How do I distinguish between that and a conspiracy theory?

On a rather semantic point, Since the Universe is everything, where would you find space for an anti Universe? On a slightly more useful level, if there were a star somewhere in the universe which by some weird quirk was made entirely of anti-matter then it would"burn" in pretty much the same was as an ordinary star. The "obvious" difference is that it would emit anti-photons. But the photon is its own anti-particle insofar as a photon and an anti-photon look the same. So why would we not expect to see light from and "anti-star"?

Bamboo is under very strong evolutionary pressure to grow quickly. We are not.

I forgot to mention earlier that it's not grass roots. It's "astroturf" since it's largely funded by the gun makers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

The first of those not only demonstrates your paranoia, it's a logical fallacy- usually referred to as the " slippery slope" argument. So that's clearly nonsense. Do you understand that it's logically invalid? And the second is nonsense too. Once again, it's a logical fallacy because you have misrepresented what I said. Here's what I actually said " one is that for the most part, if the other guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need one." Your point about "The strong can easily overcome the weak." would be a valid point if only nice people were allowed guns- but you can't do that. The only way to stop bad people having guns is to stop everyone having them. At best, giving everyone a gun gives the clear upper hand to the bad guy. He knows he is up to no good so he can shoot first. Why do you think that is a good idea?

This issue was addressed some time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

The only thing sillier than attaching a mystical reverence to a document, is attaching a mystical reverence to an amendment to that document. But never mind that. Currently in the UK we ave fairly strict controls on gun ownership and our constitution- such as it is- doesn't mention them. So perhaps our pro-gun friends would like to explain how they would justify rolling out the freedoms they enjoy to those of us in the UK. If it's such a great thing, it should be easy. How would you sell less tight gun control here in the UK?

Do you realise that saying we can't have gun control because words on a piece of paper say so is absurd? The reasoning being the constitution might be a valid point (though it's been overtaken by events), but the constitution per se is not a reason to prevent gun control. So, yes, it occupies a lot of the debate- but it's not actually important to that debate simply because it can be amended. The pro-gun lobby keep going on about it as if it's sacred, because it's about the only thing they have got. Since it's just an old bit of paper it shouldn't influence the debate so, as I said, Just to help things along; please don't cite anything to do with interpretation of the US constitution. The constitution can be changed if it is agreed that what it says -however interpreted- no longer applies The "self defence" argument has several very clear problems; one is that for the most part, if the other guy doesn't have a gun, you don't need one. That's fairly clear and reasonable, yet you cite it as an example of lunacy Another issue is that, to be used in self defence, a gun has to be "handy" that's the antithesis of good gun safety. And, since you cited my comment on my having no guns, yet having liberty you really ought to show that there's something wrong with it- especially in context. I really don't have a gun; but I can buy a three necked flask on eBay if I want to. So, it seems the best example of "silly enough" you can come up with is a pair of statements that are true and refute a claim made by someone who seems t be pro-gun. Lets be clear about that . The pro-gun guy says something. I point out that it simply is not true. And you say that's silly. You seem to be making iNow's point for him.

Perhaps you could cite some of the nonsense from advocates of gun control to illustrate your point. (Just to help things along; please don't cite anything to do with interpretation of the US constitution. The constitution can be changed if it is agreed that what it says -however interpreted- no longer applies. )

Either he said that the things are the same (rather than just looking similar) or he didn't. If he said it then he needs to show that it's true. If he didn't say it- i.e. if he said they just look similar- then he hasn't said anything worth shooting a video about.

This would probably do the job https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-gap_transmitter but they are illegal essentially everywhere because they cause a lot of interference.

Do you understand that, if he didn't say that, he didn't say anything?

"French Biotech Scientists Patent Creation Of Sperm" No, they did not. Why pretend they did?