John Cuthber

It seems to me that you would argue with a signpost. It's also reasonable to suggest that you would argue unsuccessfully that subjective is objective. Have you considered a career in stand up comedy?

Why not do that with fresh water? You have remarkable faith in these techniques: what are they?

I haven't heard it called that before.

"As of now, I rely on the subjective judgment of say 10 objective judges" "But for now, I will rely on the "Objective judges" method." Lol

But many or most people know about that correlation- and it hasn't worked yet. (disclaimer- yes I know correlation is not the same as causation)

Congratulations! You have successfully translated a gibberish equation into gibberish words.

The idea that people get drunk on beer is sound science. Tolkein's books mention getting drunk. that doesn't mean that elves and goblins are based on science

Well, you wrote "Because we were diverted in discussing other things. I felt it important to defend every claim I made, against every argument you made. I respond as prompted." so it's fair to assume that you were trying to convince people that it was true. But, cruel heartless scientist that I am, I posted evidence which showed that it isn't true. You weren't "diverted" at all- you were asked to clarify what you had written as the very first line of the first reply. It's not the first time I have pointed out that what you say simply isn't supported by evidence or even flys in the face of the evidence. I don't plan to stop doing that so, if you don't want your nose rubbing in it every time you say something that's just flat out wrong, try being less wrong or, at least try being less pig-headed about it. You could start by finding out what a straw man fallacy is.

By analogy, I know in the UK you have a law making it illegal to "insult someone thereby causing them distress". What law? Anyway " But, the US congress couldn't make that law even if the majority supported it and believed it would benefit society and make it safer." Why not? I guess it's a breach of the constitution but that's not set in stone: it can be amended. "So, even if there were only one person to whom a gun was a benefit (I should have to give an example)" There are many things that would be of benefit to some individuals which are banned in the US. Many drugs for example or bombs. " The one is assuming that liberty outweighs public safety and the other makes the opposite assumption." False dichotomy. I have the liberty not to get shot at.

Nice try. Why didn't you actually define what you were talking about in the first post? OK, so you forgot or whatever. But the very first line of the first reply you got asked you to do it. "The concept of "feminine" is ambiguous, ill-defined, and often applied based on little more than personal bias and local cultural experience. It is not really a useful characteristic, it is not an either/or trait, nor is it consistently applied across observers. It would help if you could define what you mean when you use that term." So, before anyone said anything that diverted you in any way, you were asked to clarify what you were on about: and you didn't.

No. What I was saying was (I thought) quite clear. It is not accurate to count all cases where a gun was drawn as a "success" for the gun. It may be that if the guy had just raised his fist the attacker would have given up. we know that there is a bias. We don't know how big that bias is so we can't correct for it. All we can say is that the calculation used on that page overestimates the benefit of carrying (and drawing) a gun. It's just another of those things which that web page got wrong. There are other issues along similar lines- for example a man carrying a gun may walk more confidently down the street in a rough neighbourhood than an unarmed man. The mugger may well notice this difference and attack the unarmed man. From society's point of view there is little difference- it's a mugging- maybe the mugger gets shot; maybe the other guy does, maybe both. None of those outcomes is a "win". It's society who pays the price for incidents like Newtown and from society's point of view the gun just moved the problem from one guy to another: it didn't stop the attack. So the cost is dead schoolkids and the "benefit" is that a different person was attacked. The whole subject is complicated, but it doesn't help when you start asking me about jumping out of a plane. Asking that after I already said "Given the chance I will run off," makes it particularly stupid. BTW, you cited a case where a man was killed by a group of 6 assailants. Even with a revolver/ automatic, you would need to be a good shot to get all of them.

Actually, it's even stupider than that. it says "For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing.". I'm sat reading this: I'm an adult. What is evolution going to do to change me? Obviously nothing because I'm stuck with the DNA that I was born with. So whether evolution is going full steam ahead; stalled, or even in reverse, it's not going to make any difference to me. I can dream of a better life and who knows? maybe I will get one- but evolution won't provide it. When I saw that bit I thought "this has been written by a journalist seeking to sensationalise a non-story. That's why I checked and found where it had been copied from. Vignesh Loganathan needs to learn not to plagiarise stuff and also not to plagiarise rubbish.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/odd/news/a322364/89-year-old-woman-fights-off-mugger.html http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/3655062._Feisty__woman__87__fights_off_mugger/ http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/3636259.Woman_fights_off_mugger_twice/ http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/37411_woman_fights_off_mugger http://mobile.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/9729986.Woman_stabbed_during_failed_mugging/ Given the chance I will run off, but- if I have to I will defend myself.

Why do you want a metal free mirror? We might be able to think of a different solution.

That would be a good question if there were evidence from physics. However there's not. Also the answer to the first part "Why should I let go my beliefs if they are based on scholarly evidences in religion" is that studying books about old books tells you what the authors of books wrote about old books: nothing more and nothing less. It's not even a good appeal to authority.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121206203148.htm There's nothing wrong with quoting someone else's work, but you should say that you are doing so.

Or you can read the original here http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/feb/03/genetics.research

Yes. Obviously, it would be better (from a scientific point of view) to have more data, but we haven't. One case is sufficient to show that, in at least one case, you don't need a gun to fend off a mugger. It's bizarre to think there's anything special about me or my mugger, so it's reasonable to assume that the same thing would happen in other cases. So if you count all cases where a mugger is frightened off by a gun as being due to the gun you are wrong. In some cases they are the "victim" fighting back. What I'm relying on here is that there's nothing odd about my case. If you can show why it's unique and that no other mugger would ever be frightened off by anything other than a gun then that will invalidate my point. If, on the other hand, you accept that other muggers may be scared off by someone standing up for themselves then it's wrong to attribute that to the gun per se.

If the burglar or mugger moves on to another victim (and they probably will, because they need the money) then neither the gun nor the alarm system actually reduces the number of muggings or burglaries. But only one increases the death toll.

The peace symbol has the CND logo the wrong way up. So it no longer reads as N D in semaphore but UD or CE. Very careless of them. It's easy to compile a bunch of nonsense but include some real science (like pair creation) then say "it must be true- it has real science in it". Copying a few facts doesn't make it real. Copying an alphabet badly isn't difficult either ; it doesn't prove anything . Wondering about time travel isn't a "new field of research" and it wasn't when HG wells did it. "I like to add that Plejaren scientist named Sejasa took a native earth women Eve and fathered the caucasian race as refered to in the bible 13000 years ago" Well, since the bible says 6000 years ago and reality (you know- actual scientific evidence) says that there were people 200,000 years ago then the idea of 13,000 years being either correct or even WhatItSaysInTheBible is absurdly wrong.

To a rough approximation fresh water is solar powered. Rain falls on the high ground and flows down hill. we use some of it in passing and then let it continue on its way. To use salt water would require us to pump it up hill first so we would need to spend a lot of energy doing that. Also, if we added a lot of salt water to the system we couldn't let it run into the rivers as we do with fresh water because it would upset the local environment (and also because people living further down stream wouldn't want brackish water) Then there's the cost of providing the infrastructure. it might be just about possible for coastal cities but that's all. On the other hand, mankind does have a lot of coastal cities.

Because he can see the bell-box before he approaches the house, but he doesn't know that I'm going to fight back (rather than just hand over my money) until he starts the attack. It's only a deterrent if it's obvious before the attack is initiated. A warning notice on the door saying "break in if you like- but I have a gun" is a deterrent (even if you have no gun) but the gun itself isn't because the intruder can't know about it until it's too late. Real guard dogs do, as you say, need a lot of training, but even a pet is a deterrent in a way that a gun isn't. Even if the burglar just sees some tiny little miniature poodle pup he is likely to think "that dog will bark and warn the owner of my presence if I break in here so I will go next door". Whether or not a mugger would be scared off by some set of conditions is not subjective. He would or he wouldn't; in principle, you could ask him. We don't know how likely the two outcomes are but my personal experience shows that you don't need a gun to frighten off a mugger. Attributing all cases where the attacker backed off when shown a gun, to the presence of that gun is inaccurate even if it's only to the extent of one experimental observation. I'd be happy to give up my car if it saved a single life- or even a reasonable fraction of a single life; say a millionth of one. Of course, I'd have to get one first. I never learned to drive.

1 I think WIKI has two merits, if it's wrong there's a fair chance someone will correct it and it cites references that you can follow if you wish. Complaining about WIKI is shooting the messenger and, as such, pointless. 2 LOL can you tell what accent I have? No? OK, that wraps up the idea that spoken language is important here. Why did you raise it? Had you forgotten that this is a website? 3 Your starting point was Aristotle who talked (rather insultingly) about women. It's rather silly to try to exclude them from the discussion. Not least because you hadn't actually defined what a womanish man was so that would leave the discussion floundering. On the other hand, women are a fairly well defined group so it's not unreasonable to use them as a reference. 4 see 1 5 OK, my mistake, I just checked and I mistyped whining as shining. The point is that our Aussie cousins are noted for saying that men who are involved in sport complain a lot. So that tends to argue that either you are mistaken or that sporting men are womanish. I will let you tell them that. Together with the "man flu" reference they show that it is perceived by some that it is "manly" to complain. This is at odds with your original hypothesis(which I remind you is based on the work of someone noted for getting things flatly wrong). 6 I think I have indicated the basis for at least the great majority of points I have made. If I have missed some please let me know and I will clarify them 7 When pressed repeatedly for weeks, you do what the forum rules require. Why didn't you do that earlier? 8 It is a place for discussion. By not answering people's questions you failed to take part in a civilised discussion. Instead you made random noises about their mothers. 9 At a guess, someone who gets asked about his relationship with his mother or if he hurts people's feelings often; or perhaps most bizarrely, is accused of being a chemist.

Glass is made to slightly different recipes and specifications so it's hard to generalise. If you really want to block UV then polycarbonate is good at that. On the other hand, how good an idea is it to stop babies getting sunshine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets

I've never tried it as a etchant, but nitric acid will certainly attack silver. I'm not sure what you would use as a resist. It seems some experimentation is in order.