John Cuthber

In what way? It did not change his beliefs.

So, you think they are freedom fighters if they win, but terrorists until then. Well, that's one way to look at it. However, I invite you to consider Nelson Mandela. He spent a lot of time in jail and that probably didn't improve his situation. By your argument, that makes him a terrorist. I think you will find that most people disagree. If you are the only one using a particular definition of a word, then it's the wrong definition.

Among the problems is that we are adapted to breathe a mixture of oxygen with some other gas- nitrogen. You would need to make gills that exchanged O2 and CO2 but conserved N2. Good luck. Also, tanks full of gases work quite well, so there's not that much incentive to produce gills. (Though I accept they would be great for "snorkelling".

Entalpy, in this case all the techniques involve dissipating power in the telly. That's a different problem from transmitting it.

If you ignore the fundamental stupidity of moving the bears to the Antarctic, you come to another problem. The polar bears are not the only Arctic creatures which will suffer due to the loss of their environment. If you "save" the bears you will, in some sense, have less incentive to save the ice and, in doing so, you condemn all those other creatures. The only sound way to save the bears, is to save their environment.

Why?

Bollocks Jesus is recorded as having witnessed and acted on it so it was apparently going on at the time of Christ. http://biblehub.com/john/8-7.htm though it's fair to say that's a questionable account. However, it still goes on today and it's based on the same scripture. And, nice bit of semantics there. It's true that the assertion isn't an example of prejudice against a race, but this "The sooner the Middle East is Westernised, the better." is still a breach of the rules which forbid insulting any group..

At best, that is a non sequitur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) But to qualify as that, there would need to be evidence of the premise.

OK, but why? Bears are intelligent enough to be inquisitive so that's an entirely plausible explanation. Saying it's due to compassion or empathy requires evidence that bears have the capacity to feel those things. Occam's razor is on the side of simple curiosity. The bear plainly does something- It takes the trouble to pull the bird from the water. The question of altruism is one (as I said earlier) of intent, Did it do it because it was curious or because it didn't want a dead bird in the pool or because it felt sorry for the bird. It's not clear how we could hope to know from that video clip.

Your question "Did Israel take the land without Palestinians which lived in the land?" did not make sense. I was trying to understand it. What did you mean? Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

Do you mean "Did the Israelis chase out the Palestinians from that land?" Yes, they did.

Well, I get 243. What does the book say?

It was 30 years or so ago that I got into Oxford to study chemistry. I didn't have much extra curricular activity to show- I was captain of a quiz team and I went rock climbing, but that was about it. However, at least at that time, the University didn't care very much. They did, however take account of the fact that, even though I was at a rather poorly regarded state-funded school, I took A level chemistry, and O level maths 2 years early and I also did the A level in physics a year early. Also I did go for an interview there and that gave them a chance to find out what sort of person I was as, well as things like how well I could think when they asked questions to which I didn't know the answers. Oxford was , and I think still is, is a very academically focussed institution, I understand that Cambridge, Princeton, and Caltech are similar.

You already do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastric_acid What do you want it for?

The bear sees something unusual in the water, pulls it out for a better look, gets pecked, drops it and goes away. What altruism?

I think there's a point he made which has been missed thus far. Here's a middle of the range example http://www.wickes.co.uk/5-Way-Insulated-Consumer-Unit/p/106797 £38 I can piss that against the wall on a good Friday night. I grant that the grid tie inverter is a lot more expensive. Of course, if you use solar power just for heating + hot water it's easier.

So, when you say "We can have no evidence of real opinion of every Palestinian" .you admit that you had could not have had a real idea what you were talking about when you said "I think many Palestinians did like government of Israel more than government of Palestine".

Why do you think that? Have you any evidence?

We seem to have drifted from the OP's question- "Israel-Gaza Strip conflict - who is to blame?" Perhaps I'm naive but I think the image 10Oz cited earlier answers that. Is there some valid reason why Israel's land has grown while Palestine's has shrunk?

No. It is your responsibility to make sense, not ours to try to interpret it. In particular, for example, when you say "I have explored how the empirical nature of time might explains SR dynamics more completely, simply, and is compatible with their maths." you have failed to construct a sentence which can be reliably parsed in English. It's your job to make the effort. Try again.

This is getting a bit silly. it's true that you can't measure time without something moving. It's also true that you can't describe rice pudding without something moving, but that doesn't make rice pudding crucial to the nature of time (or vice versa). Pointing out that things always move is interesting in its way, but it doesn't tell you anything deep about the nature of time

No, it's not. There are at least two algorithms that are slower. Check to see if A is divisible by each integer less than root A in turn. (This has the marginal advantage that you don't need a list of primes, it is, however stupidly slow) Pick a random integer less than root a and see if that's a factor, if not, pick another random choice. There is no guarantee that this method will work in any finite time.

I like the analogy: I may steal it as a quote. Forgiveness won't put food on your children's plates. But not forgiving will pretty much guarantee that your grandchildren also have empty plates.

ever done a double blind tasting?

You seem to have missed the evidence I cited. Here it is again. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=batshit#entry697415