John Cuthber

There is a difference between understanding that something is wrong, but doing it anyway and not even having the brains to understand that it's wrong. The first in't great presidential material (though, in international relations, being two faced might be an advantage sometimes). But the second can't be trusted with any sort of important decision.

Interesting question. How many members has the set of {things that have no properties} got?

Why do you think it matters which side was which. The point I made was that some scientists think crazy things. whether that's Schroedinger or his "opponent" doesn't matter does it. Both of them are scientists.

True, but irrelevant because it's not the church as such that's abstaining. The church is advocating a policy of abstaining. And that policy fails a lot. So, the church is advocating a policy, which it knows will fail, when there are better policies to hand. While science would advocate the better policy (if you can't be good, be careful). Now, since the church is getting in the way of the better policy here, the church is responsible for at least some of the deaths from HIV adn for the unwanted pregnancies- because it could have prevented them. But it refuses to do so. I think that's evil. Would you disagree? Don't forget about the handy hints on where to get your slaves from.

Better yet, we could look at the historic fact that they were built as graves. It's historical because they wrote it down at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts

If the best you can do is that straw man, it's time to give up. Nobody said there were no famines. What they said was that the pyramids were not built because of the famine in the bible. It's true that they get food shortages- and they build much more sensible grain stores so, if anything, Carson's claim that the pyramids are granaries is insulting to God who would have ordered better ones. I doubt that Clinton believes that oral sex isn't sex. I rather suspect that, like many people caught in an awkward position, he lied. Isn't that the simplest explanation of events? An, given that the root purpose of sex is making babies, you could argue that he would be right to believe it anyway.

Because he says it's the storage that Joseph came up with to deal with the famine that God sent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_the_Amazing_Technicolor_Dreamcoat (I always wanted to cite that as a reference.) Without the Biblical famine, there's no call for the stores. Also, maybe it's just me, but I think that Clinton probably didn't expect to get caught. If he hadn't been caught it would have been a reasonable (if immoral) action. So, he made a reasoned decision; weighed the possibilities and decided to chance it. His luck didn't hold. That's not the same as what Carson did. If Clinton had screwed a girl on live TV then tried to pretend he hadn't, then his judgement would be in the same league as Carson. Because it's as batshit crazy as this guy.

Why did you claim that I can't visualise things because I'm not religious? Why did you take so long to accept that you are just wrong? Plenty of scientists are viewed as "crazy" for whatever merit that might have. It wasn't a monk that came up with Schroedinger's cat that's alive and dead at the same time..

I don't know, but at least you will have got our attention. Good luck! (I fear you will need more than luck)

Is the cause vs effect issue sorted out here? Are confused people more likely to fail to respond to the signals from their bowels and bladder?

Do you think these guys need a bodyguard, or do you accept that, for the most part, the understanding of the freedom of speech keeps them safe? And, to avoid the wrath of the mods... "So is religion being unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought?" No, it is being given the coverage that many think it deserves- That video isn't strictly about religion, but it shows that people are discussing these sorts of issues and have concluded that there is no reason to "protect" religion from criticism. What previously happened was that religion was unfairly excluded from the arena of modern thought, which includes rational criticism and debate.

It's only a learning process if you lean to stop doing it.

Because science actually checked. Condoms don't produce promiscuity. (actually, science didn't really need to check it- if people didn't screw around there would be a lot less demand for condoms) And science also found that the "abstinence based" programmes that the church promotes do not work (in terms of reduction of unwanted pregnancy or STD rates). That might be because people are inherently stupid- but that's the way it works. We are quite often quite dumb. We can't fix stupid, so we mitigate the consequences. Promoting a programme of behaviour that real people simply don't follow is unscientific and morally wrong. That is a reasonable summary of the mechanics of the process. Or were you saying that not all people have sex? Well, that's true enough, but plenty still do (not all the time of course, that would be silly)

Others may disagree, but thanks for clarifying your point of view. As far as I can tell, most of the rest of the "wall of text" was word salad. Now you have got it out of your system, perhaps you would like to follow the forum rules and answer my point from a few posts ago.. No, in fact, I don't have a religion. Now; let me know what it is that I can't visualise as a result of that. It hardly matters. If you can't get to grips with the idea that I have no religion, what is it that I can only visualise because my "religion" is in a box marked "atheism"?

The daily mail is pretty much a right wing propaganda rag. London's position on a island did not cause Japan's problems. All cities are on islands.

There is some data that was collected by truly atrocious means- notably by the Germans in WWII but they are a long way from being the only ones. I believe that the usual view is that, if we do not use that data, those people died for nothing.

A broadly comparable question to the one about Windows would be how happy would you be to have a Unix box running your boiler. Well, if the boiler needs to send an email to let me know if anything goes wrong, that email is probably sent via servers that are Unix boxes. it's complicated. So, if I were designing it the system would be locally backed up by local safety systems that would (so far as possible) protect the boiler. In essence I'd never let boiler listen to a command from the computer that told it to do anything dumb. Then it doesn't matter if its Windows, Mac Os of a trained chimp that's providing the input to the "system" and it doesn't matter if the power fails (or the chimp is distracted by a banana).

Ask someone with a pacemaker.

"Do you own a car" would be a better question, because most of us could actually answer it. However it might not help you in your quest to find out something about us, or windows or boiler controls or whatever. What were you hoping to find out?

"However being on an island London is limited in the size of its catchment area. This leads to problems such as Japan being unable to feed itself." What? That's wrong on more levels than farting in a lift. Since the North and South of Ireland share a border, yes, it's our closest neighbour and I guess that electricity is transferred across that border. So? If you just look at the South of Ireland, and the rest of the UK then actually, France is nearer, and we trade power with the French https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_fixed_crossing None of that matters in the least. "Not really they give you electricity if you give them food etc. " No, what we do is give them jobs, money etc and then they may or may not decide to sell us power at a very high cost since the price is fixed in advance and they's almost certainly have some means to shut it down if they wanted. That's bizarre, even before you consider that (1) it's not clear that we need nuclear power- I think we might, but others disagree. (2) there's no reason why we couldn't build it ourselves. The UK built the world's first commercial power reactor. "200 years still isn't that long it will just delay the problem a while." That's an issue you need to raise with whoever first mentioned fossil fuels in this thread. Also, it's quite a long while- it is, for example, possible that we will have fusion power in less than 200 years.Two hundred years ago, humanity was inventing dental floss and the Davy lamp, Things might alsochange in the next 200.

I suspect that nobody can actually answer the question as asked. Even if I think the idea of designing a boiler like that is suicidally insane, that doesn't mean that there isn't someone somewhere who would trust Windows to run a gas boiler. (of course, if someone knows of such a system then the answer is simply "yes".) But whether I would trust such a system depends heavily on what the other parameters were. That's still true, even if nobody is actually designing it. If I met someone who was designing such a system, I'd have to ask questions like those before I was really able to come to a sensible decision so, while I can't speak for "folks" in general, my reaction would be to ask those sorts of questions. If the boiler is in a place away from people and property and isn't doing anything critically important, then why would anyone care if it was run by windows (or a demented frog, for that matter). If it was the heating system for a major hospital...

The assertion that A/P2=1/(a+b+c) can't be right by dimensional analysis. Area has units of length squared, perimeter has units of length So the LHS of the equation has no units (they cancel) but the RHS has units of reciprocal length. If you want to call that unitless parameter "fatness" that's not a problem, but the rest of the post fails. Defining the perimeter of a triangle doesn't tell you what the area is http://www.mathopenref.com/triangleareaperim.html Even if you fix one of the sides there are still generally infinitely many possible triangles with the same perimeter. (the exception is that if you fix one side to be half the perimeter, then the area is zero, but that's hardly helpful)

What's the alternative? Also, exactly what level of control does it have? Is it just an expensive timer switch or does it have total responsibility for all the control? If it's the latter then what incompetent moron forgot to add the safety valves and over temperature cut off etc.? And since any competent design would fail safe in the absence of a control signal, what difference would it make if that signal was from Windows? Are you hoping to demonstrate that some other operating system will work better? That's going to be interesting when the electrical power fails. OK, that last one is an implicit question; I meant what would windows (or anything else) do if the power failed?

I never met Tycho Brahe ; I never read his work. I don't know if he used that argument or not. It hardly matters. If he used it he was mistaken. It's possible that he came to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons, or that he came to the wrong conclusion. I'm also unfamiliar with the tower argument but, as far as I can tell from a bit of Googling, it seems they didn't understand physics properly back then. I am unsurprised by this as the physics wan't invented/ discovered until some time later (broadly by Newton, and subsequently developed further by others. That's the way science works; it gets better as time goes on.

The UK has about 200 years' worth of unused coal reserves. Using them without breaching carbon dioxide emissions agreements is the problem. All cities are on islands; why don't you think London should be, and where else could you put it? Do you propose moving it to the Moon? Electricity is traded directly with the rest of Europe; the infrastructure for that exists. (At least most of) Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom. The UK is building windfarms and solar power stations. The UK's recent decision to get China to build a nuclear station here is bizarre.