John Cuthber

You might want to check again. For example it was spoon-fed to Rigney. Anyway, as I pointed out, I was using hyperbole. It really doesn't matter what sort of guns you use. The point would have been valid if I had said "Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her an anti tank gun." or "Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a revolver." or even "Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a pistol." or "Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a shotgun." So the ban on assault rifles doesn't actually affect my point. The heart of the issue is that if you don't give people guns then, if they turn out to be nutters, at least they are not nutters with guns. Since it's impossible to tell in advance who is going to flip (unless you have Rigney's magic gift for spotting a "wrong un") the only way to stop loonies getting guns is to stop anyone getting them.

To determine is something is pre war or post war by looking at radiation means looking at whether it's got evidence of the atom bombs and tests. There's bound to be radioactive material present in the horn. But if there is plutonium you can be pretty sure it wasn't there in 1939. Ditto elevated tritium levels or 129 Iodine. The gross radioactivity will depend on the rhino's diet etc. so it would be very difficult or impossible to judge its age by any simple measurement of Bq/g

By whom? Shouldn't they be able to tell you " what these technologies may be"? If some environmentalist pressure group is saying "the incinerator would be ‘the single biggest disaster ever visited on Gloucestershire’" shouldn't they be offering a better plan?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole I presume that you have no problem with the jawbone story, even though it too, is misinformation.

The jawbone story is still not actually true, why are you sticking to it? Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her an assault rifle.

For the amount of radioactive material that you would expect to find in rhino horn you need expensive sophisticated equipment that will tell you exactly what radioisotopes you have. Just a Geiger counter or whatever won't do the job because you need to distinguish radiation from, for example, plutonium, from radiation from natural uranium etc. It's barely possible for an individual (unless he has very deep pockets) and the first step would be to dissolve the horn in hot acid.. These people might be able to help you. http://www.cites.org/

1 So you can identify a potential mass killer by sight. That's a very clever trick, can you explain two things, first how do you do it and secondly, why didn't you do it before someone got killed? Or are you going to admit that it's often impossible to make the distinction far enough in advance to be any use? 2 It's true that someone somewhere is probably planning an attack like that. Why do you want to give him the right to own a gun? 3 Fairy tales don't count as evidence. And as to the soccer moms, if you think that the particular group I chose is important, then you haven't understood the issue. The question isn't about identifying the past serial killers, it's about identifying the next one. The problem is that you can't. That's why the only way to ensure that the next wannabe mass murderer doesn't get a gun is to ensure that nobody gets one. Anyway, without a gun would this have happened? http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TD1LCIR90QVBSC1T5

Immortal. Supply some actual evidence. Stop pretending that old books or mystic ramblings count. Don't tell us that reality isn't real. Either back up your assertions with evidence or accept that you don't have any.

So, as evidence of levitation you cite a page which says "Though people testified under oath before the Congregation of Rites that they had seen Saint Teresa of Avila or Saint Joseph of Cupertino defy gravity, no scientific studies have recorded instances of levitation.". Biofeedback is an established scientific phenomenon so it's clearly not an example of progress that's not open to science. It is, thus, not evidence to support your assertion. The second site says things like "Combined Vowel ‘ai’ as in ‘hraim’: vibrations work on kidney and urinary passage making the organs strong and sensitive." but, as expected, lacks any sort of evidence for the assertions. Why do you keep citing fairy tales? Is it because you don't actually have any evidence.

They are considered in real time by the engine management system. As the OP says, "It's been about 20 years since they do not manufacture automobiles any more; they make computers with wheels since then."

Not really. It's perfectly possible (and common) to run the engine with less fuel added than would be needed to use all the oxygen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_burn For a given power requirement, you can use a smaller engine if the air is fed to it cold. Recirculating exhaust gas will have the opposite effect and will reduce the available power. It's also likely to lead to increased CO emission if used in the way you suggest. (Though it reduces NOX formation)

Immortal, come on, you have missed the point again. What real evidence can you offer for Yoga offering anything real? In the meantime, here are some delusional people who think they can fly because they can bounce around on their arses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=438UKM1Av1g

This is bizarre, Many criminals don't have mental health problems. Most people with mental health problems don't become mass murderers. The people who do become mass murderers don't generally act particularly oddly before they go on a killing spree. So, since you can't spot the loonies in advance, the only way to ensure that loonies don't get guns is to ensure that nobody gets them. More realistically, if you reduce the number of people with guns then you will reduce the number of people with guns who flip and shoot up the local shopping centre or whatever.

Immortal, what you have posted as evidence is either meaningless like " By self-control on the Polestar arises knowledge of orbits." or simply not true like "By self-control of the nerve-currents utilising the lifebreath, one may levitate, walk on water, swamps, thorns, or the like." Did you not realise that? Did you think that we wouldn't notice that it's complete rubbish? So, you have not yet provided any evidence of your previous assertion. Are yo able to do so?

Why do you not understand that those soccer moms with permits are the sort of people who sometimes turn into " mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason" Why do you want them to have guns when they do it? Are you trying to make it easier for them to kill lots of people?

WTF? You refer to a question about Australian weather, then you cite a review from another continent. Worse, it's about this " In Reversal, House G.O.P. Agrees to Lift Debt Limit"

Pardon?

If there was a video, we could comment about it. In the meantime, the thread begs the question. The first thing to establish is "are guns ever necessary, and if so, under what circumstances?" Also the OP seems to muddle two issues. Those who gave their lives and health in war need our consideration and respect. That has nothing to do with the "right" for soccer moms to carry a gun on the school run. It also overlooks the point that 95% of the world's population are not in that 300,000,000. Those few are a statistical blip.

You said "Scientific method is not the only method which works, there are other methods as well which works in bringing out knowledge which are practically useful." and when asked to name a few you said "The methodology of Yoga." So now you need to show the practical utility of "The methodology of Yoga." Please note that the merits of stretching and gentle exercise are well documented in science so they don't count as any practical utility of yoga. Did yoga, for example, build your computer or produce a vaccine against illness? (Incidentally, I assume that you are misusing the word "methodology" when you mean practice or method(s). because methodology is actually the study of methods. What we are doing here is actually methodology, we are comparing the scientific method (which is known to work, even if you pretend that it doesn't) with the methods used in Yoga which are not known to work, even if you pretend that they are).

Do you have any real evidence of any changes in sexual behaviour apart from the increased use of condoms? It is a notoriously difficult subject to study.

According to the dieticians, I have been dead for over 40 years. The only things I eat are cereals, meat, nuts and potatoes. I eat fish, but I'm not keen on shellfish. I drink fruit juice but I don't like the texture of the fruit.

Nobody misconstrued anything, you got the value of c wrong, you got the physics wrong, and you got the maths wrong. You also seem to struggle with writing decent English. BTW, there's no meaningful sense in which the universe has a surface.

"the surface of Venus is not just covered by hot CO2 the CO2 is a super critical fluid which makes the surface covered by oceans of liquid CO2." Which is it? SCF or liquid? IIRC it's far too hot for the stuff to be liquid.

Oh yes it does. "by travelling on a second photon..." implies getting to the speed of light which violates SR. On the other hand, you are quite right not to believe that the speed of light is 186 mi/s Try adding another few zeros. Anyway, the answer to the question is that you can calculate c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light

Please be aware that Semjase's use of the words "conclusively proves" does not tally with the meaning given in any dictionary.