John Cuthber

This whole thread is "wrong headed". Should I set up a thread titled "Objective plague of frogs"? There's no evidence of such a plague and, in fact, the evidence shows that many frogs are endangered. But we could still pointlessly debate what we could do to ward off the problems due to massive numbers of frogs. Here in the UK we could, for example, block up the Channel tunnel to prevent the frogs hopping over from mainland Europe. Well, lets kick off As such this topic is not here to debate whether Global Cooling a plague of frogs is happening or not. Rather it is to see what ideas anyone has to help curve the ramifications of Global Cooling a plague of frogs. Like the deaths of lots of amphibians* , Global Cooling a plague of frogs has just as many nasty effects for the world. * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8038722/Frogs-on-verge-of-dying-out-in-parts-of-Britain-due-to-disease.html

The UK just had the warmest December on record. Why do you think this Winter came early and is cold?

Most forms of sterotyping don't work very well. So, it may not be racist, but it isn't sensible.

No it won't. Read up on azeotropes.

I mentioned the Catholic church specifically in relation to their (relatively recent) view on priests getting married. Other churches have married clergy, and comparable problems of abuse.

We appear to be discussing the fact that an ape (albeit one of the less hairy ones) can ape other apes (or at least, thinks he can). Gosh!

The thing about marriage is that one of the common outcomes is children. Pedophiles with children to "look after" isn't a good idea. Also, while I'm happy to throw proverbial rocks at the churches for their collective stand on this issue, they are not the only organisations which abetted pedophillia. What is loosely called "the establishment" did the same. Plenty of those involved were married. So, the problem isn't due to people who are unmarried and it may be the case that it's better if pedophiles don't marry. I understand that the Catholic church only stopped their priests from getting married because of problems with inheritance- nothing to do with theology.

If you take the lenses out of a pair of binoculars you end up with "upside down vision".

He wasn't under threat of persecution because of his religion. He was under threat of persecution because of other people's religion. That's the religious persecution from which he suffered. He wasn't granted asylum because he was an atheist. An atheist from, Russia (for example) wouldn't be granted asylum. A Christian, Jew or Buddhist would have been granted asylum in those circumstances too. So, I'm not sure that it's a "lack of religion" that got him asylum in this case.

"I ask specifically what rule would I need to find for people to start listening?" One that works. It needs to be reasonably concise; that's not very clearly defined but it needs to be able to calculate pi indefinitely with a finite set of rules. This, for example, shows how to calculate pi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Continued_fractions Toi do the calculation would take forever because the number of digits is infinite. But from just a few lines you can see how to carry on and get as many digits as you want. The "rule" is simple. Your "rule", in addition to being a bit unclear, are arbitrary. Every few digits, you need another rule. With a set of rules like those, you can link anything to anything (pi to my brother's DOB for example) but you can only generate all the rules if you already know pi. And, if you already know pi, it's no use being able to calculate it. There's something else you seem not to be taking account of. A bunch of people here with a solid understanding of maths, have pointed out that you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. Why can't you accept that?

You forfeited that right when you agreed to the rules here. If I was feeling hostile, I'd explicitly report that as a breach. Now, answer the questions.

I think he may have been referring to the clinical use of antibiotics and their effect on the gut, rather than environmental exposure.

Fair enough, I will stop offering thanks. Could you answer the questions please?

Thanks for answering the first question. So, you say that you don't know the difference between the heat of the moment and capital punishment. OK, that explains a lot. Please answer the other questions. Thanks

But when there's a 5 in the sequence, you do 3 different things. How do you choose which one ? (appart from the fact that you know what answer you are loking for)

OK, so you have introduced two labelled rules (and a lot of other tacit rules too). How many more rules would you need for the next hundred digits? The point is that you have to keep adding arbitrary rules. Anyone can do that. Here's my brother's birthday 27/10/1962 Remove the /s 27101962 and compare it with pi 27101962 31471592 "Obviously" you get pi by adding 1 to the first digit, subtracting 6 from the second, adding 3 to the third and so on. But that doesn't really help because you have to keep on making up new rules to get it to work. Now, unless you can show me the way in which the rules you have used are produced (and show me how to keep on producing them, without knowing what the digits of pi are) then you haven't done anything more than I did with a birthday. (And, once again, it doesn't work in other number bases)

The forum rules require you to answer reasonable questions about your assertions. There's a tacit assertion that you think the home invasion scenario is relevant to a discussion of the death penalty. They are not remotely equivalent, and the law recognises that. I'm asking if you also know what the difference is. That's not an insult, it's a question. "Finally the subject topic was to establish if capital punishment was a form of justice, in my scenario I would not wait for the state to do it, I will do it myself ," And, in my opinion, you thereby lower yourself to their standards. If there's no other way to stop the crime then shoot all you like, and with my blessing, but it's still not the same as the cold blooded killing of a helpless man in jail so it's not the same topic. "How can you state as if it were a fact that, I don't know what I am talking about" Because you couldn't even spell it correctly. I remind you that, when I asked for evidence, you didn't provide any. To me, that also suggests that you don't know what you are talking about. Why do you assume that this is something to do with "Of course I am always wrong and you are always right, you have "proved that to everyone by now" have you not?." Do you not realise that if you post stuff that's wrong (or unsupported) on a science website then people will point out that you are wrong. Do you not think we should do so? Would it still be a science website if people could post any old stuff and people were not permitted to point out errors? Incidentally, that's quite a lot of questions. Please answer them.

Did you somehow imagine that bold text would make it seem less wrong?

No it isn't. That's denatured alcohol. IPA is a different chemical.

We don't do that.

It seems that about 9000 people looked into all that. Only one of them thinks it's not down to us.

In a sense Proof by outrageous font size. I haven't been following this thread but, as far as I can tell we know that accelerating electrons gives rise to em radiation in a number of cases. The transmission of radio waves. The production of X rays when fast electrons hit a target and - if you are looking for cases where a magnetic field does the acceleration, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation

Well, if we are the apes with no sense of smell, is that evidence of ongoing evolution. We are the nearly bald apes, but that doesn't indicate that we are changing; we were always the least hairy apes. I'm still looking for evidence for the suggestion that "humans in general, are evolving out of many of there animal instincts"?

"We don't fight right away when we don't like someone" Nor do most animals "we don't fight each other to 'win' females" That's a matter of definition Both sexes, at some level, "compete". "perhaps our sense of smelling is less good" Than what? Sure, it's less good than a dog's, but we are not in the same ecological niche as dogs. Our ancestors broadly speaking ate plants. You don't need to be able smell them from a long way off, because they don't move; also we have good eyesight. Is there evidence that our sense of smell is much worse than, for example, a chimp's?

You seem to have missed this bit of my earlier post Do you have any actual support for your suggestion that "humans in general, are evolving out of many of there animal instincts"?