John Cuthber

Yes, the air-bags cause deaths; and they cause a lot more in your country than mine. And there's a reason for that and it's to do with wearing seat belts. Oops! My mistake, what you introduced was that the idea that they offered. "and almost no gain in safety "

You need to sort out the quoting there. Also, do you know that the air bags in the US are different from those in the UK? They are less powerful here- because it's safe to assume the person is also being restrained by a belt- so they don't do so much harm. It's your "freedom" to not wear a belt that results in deaths and damage from air bags. BTW, it's not a "presumption" about the guns- he demonstrates the reasoning behind it. Oh, and "A bike is worth nothing if I don't enjoy riding it. " Unless cheap healthy transport has a value, but... "Almost irrelevant statistic. " Said the man who introduced a discussion of bike helmets. ​But "almost irrelevant" or not, it shows that "and almost no gain in safety " simply isn't correct. If you say something and I point out that the evidence shows it's wrong, the evidence is not irrelevant.

No experiment has shown the ether to exist; so it doesn't. Score one nil to the scientific method. October 11, 2015. © [Need crediting only if you don't understand copyright, which exists whether declared or not; mind you I don't see anyone bothering]

The vapour pressure of DMF at 50 C is about the same as that of water at 20C and that's not going to do much. (Both are around 20 mmHg). The real question is what's the reaction? If it generates gas or causes the DMF to decompose then you have an issue. https://secure2.pnl.gov/nsd/NSD.nsf/CAS/D5F1E8C50B004BA688257592005ECA05/$FILE/DMF_25T.pdf?OpenElement

My word! What a lot of wrong. Lets start with the fact that guns are not free. So the cost of a gun is"imposing a cost barrier on a Constitutional right. ". Now, if, as you presumably believe, your guns are not going to harm anyone, the insurance premium should be near zero- just the admin costs. If you add it to some other insurance you already have- home,car, life, whatever; the cost should be minimal. We could make a start by just getting health (and life) insurance companies to ask the question "is there a gun in your home" and setting the premium to reflect this. If the "self defence" argument is valid, then this should reduce your premiums- so there's no reason for you to object to it. You should insist on it so the extra deaths you presume to accrue from not having a gun to defend yourself are born by the people who don't have a gun. OK, now lets have a brief look at seatbelts (it's a bit OT but...) from the data here http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/ we see that "More than half of the people killed in car crashes were not restrained at the time of the crash.1 Wearing a seat belt is the most effective way to prevent death and serious injury in a crash." and that seatbelts have saved something like 250,000 lives Here in the UK we "did the experiment" and introduced legislation requiring drivers to wear belts- it had been voluntary before. So this is the difference you talked about when you said "By required presence of voluntary seat belts extensively promoted? Very many. The extra by making wearing them mandatory under all conditions, in betrayal of original promises? Some but much fewer," The answer is, perhaps, surprising. Not much happened. From http://jech.bmj.com/content/43/3/218.full.pdf There's a small drop in the overall number of deaths. And there's an interesting other change; the number of pedestrian and pedal cycle deaths went up slightly. The latter is interesting as it might explain why the drop in driver deaths is so small (obviously any overall drop in the death rates is a good thing) The suggestion is that the drivers "compensated" for having seat belts on by driving faster. That meant they hit more bikes and walkers and their own death rates stayed nearly the same. So, the belts actually produced a negative "opportunity cost"- you could drive faster and not increase your risk of killing yourself. This " Ponder the situation faced by the musicians I know - driving in the winter ice and snow, securely belted as always (so the air bag is redundant)" is just plain contrafactual. the bags are still useful, even when the driver is wearing a belt.- other wise there would be no use fitting them in (for example) the UK where seat belt use is very high (partly because it's a legal requirement). and as for "A dangerous and unreliable employment of governmental power. " FFS! just don't vote in a government that does things that are bad for the people, then it doesn't matter what power they have (or don't). It's the policy that matters, not the power. " A helmet law affecting me would be quite intrusive - a serious expense coupled with a serious diminishment of my enjoyment, " How much is a bike? How much is a helmet? How much is your brain worth? "and almost no gain in safety " http://www.cochrane.org/CD001855/INJ_wearing-a-helmet-dramatically-reduces-the-risk-of-head-and-facial-injuries-for-bicyclists-involved-in-a-crash-even-if-it-involves-a-motor-vehicle So, the argument that's left is "serious diminishment of my enjoyment, " Do you remember the video of the Australian bloke talking about guns? You can find it here http://rare.us/story/jim-jefferies-gun-control-bit-went-viral-for-its-hilarity-and-now-its-getting-personal/ at about 15 seconds into the vid, he explains the one real reason for not having gun control which is "F*** off! I like guns"

If we redefine God as strawberry ice cream, then plainly God exists. But it has little to do with the topic.

Seriously? you cite a page called armagedonconspiacy and then ask "what conspiracy". I suspect this thread won't live much longer. As I asid, I certainly didn't (and haven't) see anything that looked like a mathematical proof of anything.

In reply to my observation " On a related note, perhaps we should require gun owners to have insurance- much the same as with car ownership." I don't understand. Do you mean that in the states there is no requirement for insurance for gun ownership- OK Yes, I guessed that- I suggest changing it. Or do you mean that there is some requirement for insurance if you have many guns, in which case I'm just suggesting drooping the threshold to 1. What did you actually mean? (I realise it's going to be difficult to get the population of the US to swallow this idea when they are so addicted to guns that this sort of thing doesn't sway them.)

If there was a "biblical" Eve- the one mother of all humanity because, at the time, there were only two humans, then you would expect us to all share the same mitochondrial DNA. It only takes a population bottleneck, and a bit of luck to achieve the same effect.

Did anyone ever define God this way? "...definition of God is expanded to cover any non terrestrial life form that may have influenced life on earth at some point in some way".

I had a look at the link. It is a smorgasbord of conspiracy nonsense etc. I certainly didn't (and haven't) see anything that looked like a mathematical proof of anything.

"his religion that states god can be proven mathematically" Go on then; prove it. (I predict abject failure- but please try anyway)

We know that people in Africa are often African. So why point it out? Why mention it unless you think there's something specific that makes a difference? Don't forget you still haven't explained this "we can guess where these are(in Europe)" I just mention it because it's plainly xenophobic.

On a related note, perhaps we should require gun owners to have insurance- much the same as with car ownership.

How is it "racism" Talking about "Africans" when the ebola crisis is from Africa? Perhaps when I said Africans do not like to wear condoms? If the crisis was from America I would have used the same statement. It isn't and nobody said it was,did they? "Perhaps when I said Africans do not like to wear condoms? If the crisis was from America I would have used the same statement." That's more or less my point. People don't like condoms much, so pointing out that these people are African- as if that is the reason they don't like them- is racist.

No, you may not. If it was even close to the topic... Well don't.

So, still a shed full of racism there. Still, in answer to your question re. "So you are saying you would sit your family in a room with "PAULINE"?" Strictly speaking I don't make decisions for my family- they can do that for themselves- so the only member of my family I can speak for is me. I'd happily do so, though I'm not sure what good it would do; perhaps I could read a nice book for her. This"WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL NOT IN THE THOUSANDS OF AFRICANS WHO WHERE INFECTED?" is a logical fallacy EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE PUT IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Specifically, it's a straw man, since nobody actually made the claim you have attacked. Do you actually understand why doing that makes you look silly? "I get crucified for stating pauline is infected, " No you didn't . Try not telling lies next time you post. "Not yet, but she is contagious," Clearly not true- because, if she were there would be other cases by now. Again, try not lying next time. "Have you not read of the thousands of "African" passports found that have been discarded in Europe, " Who cares; have you not heard that most Africans are still in Africa? How, exactly, do you imagine that the ones who happen to be carrying Ebola chose to move to Europe? Do you imagine the virus somehow gives them the air fare? Or was it just a lie again- based on nothing but prejudice against a race- or if you prefer- racial prejudice - or, as it's commonly referred to Racism?

God preserve us from Anselm's Ontological Argument.

Since you clearly don't know what you are talking about, why don't you stop? If you get the wires which connect to a speaker swapped the worst thing you get is a phase error which might muck up the stereo imaging a bit.

Possibly, but probably not safely. It depends what else is there.

You can indeed guess, but the idea that they are in Europe is spectacularly stupid. If they were here we would have records of their entry at passport control. Almost all of them will, of course, be in Africa . But the really important points you have missed are that They are not infectious and people are not the natural reservoir for ebola anyway. You are right; you are not being funny. It is however racist and, as such, a breach of the forum rules.

Lets hope that, since two of us have pointed out that the legal rulings can be overturned and that the constitution can be amended, and those amendments can be overturned, people will stop saying "You can't control guns because of what it says on a piece of paper". That would make this sort of discussion much quicker and easier.

If that is what you mean, why did you not say so in the first post?

Tetanic? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanic_stimulation

The rest of this "idea" fails for exactly the same reason. If you learn what dimensional analysis is you will avoid producing stuff that, to be frank, the world of science will laugh at.