John Cuthber

It's unfortunate that you seem to have nothing to say. The site rules say that you should support your assertions with evidence (or admit that you were wrong). And, not, it's not. If you want to be pedantic it should be "been lost", but got lost is perfectly acceptable.. "Gotten" is an Americanism.

Mainly illogical or wrong. You have just dome a good job of supporting gun control, by showing the weakness of the "arguments" against it.

Has the reply to that got lost?

I think the chart is from the New York Times, and I imagine they cite their sources. If you don't know what's true and what isn't, then you have a problem. if you are concerned that not all things are black and white then that's why the chart has 5 categories. Found it. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html?_r=0 You can click the links and find out what they lied about. Of course, if you think theyare wrong, you can simply cite evidence.

Yes.

And, therefore, the real world.

It's a little simplistic, but the country of Wales is split from England by mountainous terrain, and the Welsh are fairly convincingly a different ethnic group (for example, they have a very different language from England). Italy is largely split from the rest of Europe by mountains. Ditto France and Spain and Argentina/ Chile.

Lots of irrelevant words there. You can still do both, so it's still a false dichotomy. Incidentally, genuine gun control would also mean that the "homicidal criminals" would also not have a gun. Did you not understand that either? Also, do you remember the video? It showed that guns are either dangerously (and thus irresponsibly) easy to get hold of, or uselessly locked away when the "homicidal criminal" breaks in. Did you forget that the "home defence" argument had already been written off as nonsensical? The number of homicidal criminals killed by home-owners during a home invasion is practically nil. Your answer address a circumstance that almost doesn't exist. Yet the number of people killed by accidents and by family members while in the home is much bigger than that. Your plan is to increase the bloodshed. Why do you want more people dead?

You really are not getting the message here, are you. "if an object could be frozen to abs 0, and that state included properties of being static (no acc) and 0 energy, " No. even at absolute zero the atoms and molecules are still moving; (and accelerating too) they vibrate. If they did not then their positional uncertainty would be zero their momentum uncertainty would also be zero because you would know where they were (neatly arranged in a lattice) and their momentum would be zero. And that is (whether you like it or not) a violation of the uncertainty principle. The expression for the energy of a simple oscillator is given here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator as and there's no integer value of n for which that energy is zero.

Can you post a link to the bit of the core curriculum that actually says that please?

No, that would still breach the uncertainty principle. Even at absolute zero the atoms stll vibrate.

No. Just plain wrong on two counts. Firstly, absolute zero doesn't imply no motion (which would be a breach of the uncertainty principle and secondly "Currently, the most accurate atomic clocks first cool the atoms to near absolute zero temperature by slowing them with lasers and probing them in atomic fountains in a microwave-filled cavity. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

They can be said to be "in chocolate sauce with sprinkles" if you like. the question isn't whether or not you can say it; the important question is: does it help to say it?

This might also help https://johnshopkins.collegiatelink.net/organization/engineeringworldhealth/DocumentLibrary/View/221436

Time isn't affected by temperature.

That's a dangerous bet to make. He can claim to be offended by anything he chooses, and it is impossible to prove that he's not. On an unrelated note http://winningdemocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/liars.jpg

Yes it is., and it was 13.82 billion years ago.

A lot of words, but apparently not enough, because you clearly don't understand. This "So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead." is still a false dichotomy because you don't have to do one "instead" of the other, you can do one in addition to the other. And, re. "Since I don't associate with criminals and have self control, the chances of any of my firearms being used in a homicide are essentially zero. So why should my liberty be restricted?" that's what they all would have said, shortly before either, someone broke in and killed them with their own gun, or they picked up a gun in a flash-in-the-pan argument and shot them, or the kids got hold of the gun.

Interestingly, this is progress. Now, do you understand that the flood is likely to subside, but that doesn't stop it being a good idea to fix the leaky roof? Do you understand that the really good thing to do is not to fix problem A nor to fix problem B, but to fix both problems? The fact that you can look at both is, (for about the 4th time of explaining it) the reason why it's a false dichotomy to say that you have to fix one, or the other? Are you beginning to get to grips with that yet? Do you see that attacking crime does not stop you controlling gun misuse and that attacking the misuse of guns does not stop you attacking crime? Once we address this failure of your comprehension, perhaps we can look at the one where you don't understand that it's rude to claim that other people are not also trying to stop people getting killed (by trying to do (listen carefully here) not just one thing- but two different things that might both help) Do you see how doing two things might do more than just doing one? I realise I'm labouring the pint but each time I try to point out that two is more than one, you seem not to understand. Is it that simple, are you unable to grasp the idea that doing two things- each of which might help a bit- is likely to be better than doing just one of them? Or should we simply ignore all your future posts as dross?

Let's be absolutely clear about this. Using high voltage (more than about 4 or 5 volts) is the wrong way to go. The commercial systems use a handful of volts and 150000 amps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall%E2%80%93H%C3%A9roult_process

Still close enough to 0 for it to be a bad choice of wavelength for most purposes http://www.chem.canterbury.ac.nz/LetsTalkChemistry/ElectronicVersion/ElectronicVersionNew/chapter10/spectroscopicmore.shtml

And, as already explained, This "So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead." is still a false dichotomy because there's nothing to stop you doing both. Do you understand that? And I'm annoyed at you because you falsely accused me of not wanting to reduce the death toll when you said this "Not if your goal is to reduce homicide. But that is not your goal is it?". But you have backed up my comment about your general lack of understanding.

Since he didn't make it clear: I will just point out that without an isolating and voltage reducing transformer, the circuit that Sensei drew is probably lethal. Also, in general, raising the voltage just makes the system less efficient- you waste more heat.

Do you not understand what a false dichotomy it? If so, you should have looked it up or asked, before commenting on it. Or do you not understand that it's insulting to say that I am not trying to reduce the bloodshed? Or do you not understand that (as iNow said) we can do both? Or are you making a general observation that your skill at understanding things is poor- which is consistent with your recent posts?

Regardless of the objective, it's a false dichotomy. Is it that you just don't understand what I wrote or did you feel like being pointlessly offensive anyway?