John Cuthber

"It's based on the KKK never getting started in its lynch habit if its targets had had guns handy. And that is a reasonable, evidence backed, viewpoint. It should be treated as such. " And if both sides had guns handy? We will never know- so it's hardly "evidence based". You just demonstrated my point- the group with the big guns got away with a lot of killing and in a way they still do. Have a look at the stats for the colour of people shot by the police. (Thought I'm not altogether sure that the KKK are a realistic model of the government.) Hitler's rise to power wasn't hindered by the fact that plenty of decent law abiding citizens still had guns (and the knowledge to use them) from WWI Tyranny is most likely to turn up with a smiling face, offering to protect you from the "outsiders". Now imagine that the "outsiders" are the government and the smiling faces are those of the NRA. It works both ways. Oh boy! I see the constitution is still popping up as a "reason" for things. It can be rewritten. It has been. It could be again. So, if you think those rights come from the constitution and the constitution comes from [whatever group or individual has the authority to rewrite it] then your rights are at the whim of that group. Well, yes they are, and what if that group decides to change its mind and ban guns? What if they decide to enforce that whim by military power?

It seems that I can summarise this thread by saying that sometimes if you add an even number to a prime you get another prime.

So, what you are saying is that to do something different, somewhere else would need something different.

What do you mean by "presage "?

In many cases the answer is "thousands of miles of supply lines". In the case of Ireland, the UK still essentially occupies 6 counties and there's an uneasy peace there of sorts. Give it a while and the occupation will be seen to have succeeded. In France the government also only had "toys".

Understanding thermite reactions and amalgamation is a tiny part of chemistry. re. "With a handwave and some jargon we dismiss ANY U being amalgamated in the core, " No we don't- not if we are competent chemists. That's simply not how partition equilibria work. Most of the rest of what you say just doesn't make enough sense to comment on except this "I believe a negative gravitational (but not inertial) mass for the electron would begin verification and explain much besides, even in meteorology. Can this be done yet?" You might believe that , but it doesn't agree with the experiments. In Mass spectrometers the inertial mass is measured, but the watt balance measures gravitational mass. The two agree to very high precision- much better than they would if electrons had negative mass The actual evidence shows that your idea is wrong. (It was never good enough to be called a theory) . Reality doesn't agree with you and it isn't because reality has made a mistake.

Well, I think your first sentence there speaks volumes. It is simply wrong. Wrong in the sense of factually incorrect. The Right has much more than its fair share of wingnuts. There's already a very long thread about that elsewhere. In spite of repeated asking, nobody was able to find anything like as many wingnuts on the Left. (Even by the US standards of Left). http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?p=697392 If half the people don't bother to vote, maybe it's because they realise that they don't really understand the issues. For at least some of them that makes sense. Given the electoral system in my country (and I think in yours too) in many places there's no point voting. Where I live the "donkey with a red rosette" would get elected anyway. You can vote blue if you want, but you have no chance of influencing the outcome. Not bothering to vote in that case makes perfect sense. I agree with you on one thing; if you don't vote you have got to accept some responsibility for that and (at least) not complain about the outcome. But there's a simple truth that's regularly ignored. Most people rely on the state for at least some of the time. That might be as children, or when they are ill , or in their retirement. Many also rely on it while they are "between jobs" So, most people actually benefit from state handouts. Most of them would benefit more, if those payments were bigger. Most people would benefit from a government that pays out more to those in need. Most people should vote for a government that pays out more than tose in need. The only real exception to that is those people who are so rich that they don't need state help. That group of very rich people is a small minority of the population and they are the only ones who should vote in favour f tax cuts and reduced welfare spending. The Right wing should never get elected (except perhaps sometimes as a "protest vote" if the government does something spectacularly dumb). Yet the Rigth wing gets elected all teh time in the US and a lot elsewhere. Is there an explanation of that which doesn't involve either implausibly stupid voters or dishonesty on the part of Right wing politicians? (For example where they blame America's problems on Mexicans al la Trump.)

The comment about trolling wasn't in response to a "simple question", was it? It was in response to this So the issue now is were you deluded or dishonest when you asked?

Nothing is toxic and everything is toxic; the dose is what makes the difference. It's probably a good idea to wash your hands after working with the ingots but you are not likely to get anything like a toxic dose from working with it. People make food containers from aluminium. the biggest toxic risk is probably from chemicals released from the paint on the cans when it burns off.

Ho Hum. It really doesn't matter if I could give lessons to the former soviet union about propaganda. It remains the case that the Right wing in the US is doing a lot more than its fair share of misleading the voters. So, it's the propagandists' fault rather than the voters. it's arguably the Left's fault that they are not also being as crassly dishonest as the Right- but that's not a great way to address things.

You don't understand that you are already not armed, because your toys wouldn't help. I suspect that something like that has been said shortly before every time the people were fired on by their own army.

I'm amused that you think that " American Liberty" is different from anyone else's. (well I can own a 3 neck flask without a license and if Iwas in Texas...). You don't seem to realise that I too can speak my mind. And I too don't expect a problem with the police. But that's not the point is it? When the pro-gun lobby talk about defending themselves from "The Government" they are obviously talking about some future state in which the government has gone rogue- otherwise there wouldn't be any need to defend themselves would there? So, anything you said about the current police or army is irrelevant isn't it? Fast forward to the dark days where you feel that the government is unduly restricting your legitimate freedom what will you do. By then, yor neighbours with video cameras on their 'phones may have heard about this https://longlens.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/philadelphia-freeze-or-problems-photographing-the-police-in-america/ and so they might simply close the curtains. There's already enough government influence on the media to mean that Action 5 news will stay away. So, in the case that's actually relevant, once more- how much caution do they need? Of course, there's every chance it will never come to that; the controls in place will prevent any such government developing. OK, fine, but in that case why do people say they want guns to defend themselves from the government? You can't have it both ways. It makes no sense to claim that the guns are the arms of a well ordered militia which can enforce the will of the people on the government when the government has the whole US military on hand.

What thread is this? Do you remember asking ""Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England ". In what way is asking that question in this thread not making it "a 'Right vs. Left' issue..."? OK, so I'm biassed. However the assertions I made were actually correct. GDP did generally rise except for two troughs where the Right wing were in charge. But when you say "I sit on the fence and dole out blame to everybody" do you actually check that both sides are to blame before you do that? In particular do you dole out equal blame even if one side is more blameworthy than the other? Do you, for example dole out equal blame to me making an observation in such a way that people might think it's causation as you would to the GOP 's failure to condemn those who called Obama a communist Moslem?

This "That is exactly what I want. I want Action 5 News rolling their cameras as American solders roll tanks supported by RPG carrying infantry, coming down my street to tear gas me out of my home to get my guns. "

TimeSpaceLightForce I'm inclined to agree with Imatfaal, can you provide a solution please?

Do you remember asking "Why don't we analyze what the 'left' and 'right' did to England since the war, instead of always picking on Americans ?" Would you like to let us know where you want the goalposts next time? On a related note the same glitch happens (about a year later) in Australia and Hong Kong who are not normally considered part of Europe; but you actually asked about the UK. So, re "The conclusion a reasonable person, who informs him/herself, draws from this is totally different from the conclusion you drew. That its a European phenomenon," I'm not certain that's what a reasonable well informed person would say, But, when I was talking of propaganda I was talking not of anything I write (I flatter myself that I might have an audience of dozens) but things like this http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/ where fox news leaves people more ignorant than not watching any news. You might say that's a little out of date and you'd have a point. How about today's news in the UK. Compare and contrast According to this http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/24/telegraph-tory-votes-jeremy-corbyn-cleared-ipso-labour It's OK for a Right wing paper to try to get people to influence a vote for the leader of the opposition http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741861/How-you-can-help-Jeremy-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html But not if the Left wing do it http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1585822.ece You will note they are both advocating support for the same candidate.

Sounds a bit like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting

The simple problem is that going faster costs more. You have to move the air out of the way of the plane. The faster you do that the faster you have to move the air. But accelerating that air takes energy so the faster you go the more energy you need. Since you have to pay for fuel to provide that energy it's more expensive to fly fast. There's an even bigger problem when it comes to supersonic flight- you have to effectively ram the air out of the way. this takes even more fuel. New designs of engine or whatever are not going to help very much.

Well, since they are the ones who run propagandist media, theirs. You can't blame a population who are always lied to for not knowing the truth.

They have tanks and RPGs. Frankly, they probably only need tear gas to beat you into submission. How much caution do they need? It's an interesting point about the gun lobby that they talk of defending themselves against the government. It seems to me that such a stance indicates just how far from reality they are.

Almost all of that isn't chemistry. The classification here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldschmidt_classification shows where the lithophile elements are and uranium is esentially stuck in the middle of them. It's easily oxidised https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_electrode_potential_(data_page) and forms stronger bonds to oxygen than to sulphur. Incidentally you are plainly wrong in saying "The excess of iron, also a lithofile element," Iron is the prototype siderophile .

OK, the current UK government is cutting social spending and yet it has had to double the national debt. It doesn't understands that there is more than one way to balance the books. Instead of collecting taxes, it has borrowed more than all the Labour governments put together. The UK middle class isn't doing well- the working class is doing worse. The only group who are getting rich are those who were rich to begin with. Obviously, that's a natural trend-- you don't actually need the government to help do that. There are lots of ways to look at economic growth, one of the easiest is GDP. Here's how the UK and US per capita GDP compare https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:GBR:DEU:FRA&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_pp_cd&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false So they have pretty much followed the same path. Our "communist" policies don't seem to have done much harm And looking at just the UK you find things like this http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/uk-real-per-capita-gdp-19192001-where.html So perhaps we should look at the effect of Left and Right on that The GDP data for the UK is here (sorry, it only goes back as far as 1960- but feel free to find better data.) https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:GBR:USA:DEU&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:GBR:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false Generally, GDP goes up There are a couple of clear troughs from about 1980 to 1985 and 25007 to 2012 Both of those happened under Right wing governments. The prolonged period of relatively steep growth was between about 1968 and 1979 Well, the very steep bit was 1976 to 1979 under Labour (Jim Callaghan) Most of the rest of it was also under Labour. There's a drop between 2007 and 2009 but that corresponds to an international world wide drop so it's a little unfair to blame Gordon Brown for it. Under the current Tory government growth has pretty much flatlined. The other interesting thing about that graph is that it shows thet the UK was catching up with the US untill the 2008 recession.

It is possible to repeat the experiment using microwaves with wavelengths of the order of a few cm and slits cut from foil. The "wall" can be thinner than the wavelength- the experiment still works. It's common to use material that's thicker than the wavelength of light- simply because a foil less than a two thousandth of a mm thick is difficult to work with.

Did it occur to you that the reason for that is that you should go an read a text book?

I'd be perfectly happy with one, as long as it could store up "computing ability" on sunny days so that I could still use it on cloudy ones. Why would it be a problem? Or did you forget that it's possible to store electricity? In the limit, it's possible to store electricity as a coal heap- when it's sunny, the heap doesn't get smaller as quickly. the coal you didn't use because it was sunny can be used when it's night time.