John Cuthber

No. Nobody is putting forward that general case are they? But there is a view that it applies to the specific case of somewhere to live. You don't need a car but you need somewhere to live. If someone wanted to take your car because they needed it to get their child to hospital would you say no?

The chances are 1 in 124.73 But I'm not using a conventional definition of genius.

Why? Probably the most widespread teratogen is alcohol, and that's natural. Incidentally, the prevailing "wisdom" at the time was that the placenta prevented harmful materials from reaching the foetus so testing in pregnant women was pointless. I suspect that the FDA's decision to require more testing was a fluke. They were concerned about other forms of toxicity.

Just cooling the water won't kill anything. In fact, some bugs will carry on multiplying slowly. The best bet s to leave the water in the tap. If you really need to get rid of micro-organisms then boiling the water is the simplest way. What are you trying to achieve here?

The viruses which affect humans seldom infect other mammals- never mind aliens. But there are bacteria that degrade all sorts of things, including materials that we think of as toxic waste. I doubt that the aliens could be made of things so "unearthly" that some bacteria wouldn't be able to treat them as food. Our alien invaders wouldn't have any immunity to those bacteria (in the sense that we have). They might have a general immune system which would protect them from earthly micro-organisms in just the same way that it protects them from the bugs they (presumably) had on their home planet.

What happened in that case was already illegal- that's why the court evicted the thieves. Why change the law on something which is already illegal? And wouldn't it be better to spend the taxpayers' money on social housing rather than drafting new laws?

"This is one of the simplest and most powerful proofs of God there is – no one with any ability to reason could say there isn't a God after reading this ! A simple equation: 2% + 2% = 4% 2% of Carbon + 2% of Oxygen = Carbon Dioxide (CO2) " You may think it's simple, but it's plainly wrong. To make carbon dioxide you need 12/44 ie about 27.3% carbon and 32/44 ie about 72.7% oxygen. Your so called "Proof" is unquestionably wrong at the third line. (The rest doesn't make sense either) You say "ACCORDING TO EVERY SCIENTIFIC LAW KNOWN TO EVERY BEING WITH THE ABILITY TO THINK - THERE COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN A SUBSTANCE OF ANY KIND TO CREATE THE BIG BANG." Well, so what? Nobody said the big bang was created by a substance. The latest guess is that it was created by a clash of multidimensional membranes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_theory You seem to have put a lot of energy into disproving something which nobody believed anyway. If you did that deliberately then it's a form of logical error called a strawman. Such fallacies are not permitted by the rules of this site. The bit about 666 in bar codes is also factually incorrect. the way in which 6 is indicated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UPC-A_L6.svg is clearly different from the guide bars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UPC-A_E.svg It's also silly. Why would they choose a system that muddles up the start and finish markers with the digit 6? Since the 666 bit is plain wrong any concerns which are based on it about the RFID chips are also wrong.

OK, how come we have achieved so much with such poor education?

By the simple expedient of lying, they will save us from the truth. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/08/29/mitt-romney-tells-533-lies-in-30-weeks-steve-benen-documents-them/ except for the reality that "truth will out"

"There must be a better way of helping the homeless - or helping them help themselves perhaps!" yes, but rather than do that, our government has sought to outlaw one of the few simple direct ways to address poverty- if you need somewhere to live, find somewhere that isn't being used, and live there. I think the answer to the question posed in the title of the thread is "If you own so many properties that you are generally not resident in any of them"

Actually it's perfectly possible to get ten times that number of tennis balls into the room. But not all at the same time

I know. That's why it would be such fun getting them to explain why the government issued ID (food stamps entitlement documents or whatever) couldn't count as ID for voting. Exactly the same people who the Republicans want to disenfranchise are the people who already have government issued ID.

I see that the barn yard atmosphere isn't on WIKI's list of units of energy .

Interesting this. Who remembers the other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/page__st__40 where we were looking for daft ideas from realistic Left wing candidates? Thanks to Phi for All we were reminded of Raul Grijalva who was noted for two things Pointing out that prescription drugs kill people too (a bit weird, but fairly accurate) and "since the discrepancies involved with the 2004 presidential election, he supports a request that the United Nations observe and certify major elections in the US." Well, that looks quite sensible to me. Incidentally, as a UK citizen I don't need any sort of ID to vote. Presumably that's because the difference I might conceivably make by voting several times is trivial. Incidentally, I know that there is some sort of state provision for US citizens who are unable to find work. I presume that, before they hand out food stamps or emergency cash (or whatever) they check people's ID in some way. I suspect there's some sort of ID card involved. Well, if that's good enough to take money from the government, it should be good enough to let them vote. Can we sell that idea to the republicans?

DNA isn't a code- it's a message. Like scrambled letter left on a bit of paper for his colleagues to read. Pointing that out to the God squad won't help. The code is the relation of 3 bases to one amino acid. But it doesn't matter. It's still begging the question so it's not a logical argument.

Remind me to use a pinhole camera next time I'm bugging a room.

This a million miles from my field of expertise so I hope someone looks at it and tells me if I'm talking nonsense. but, as I understand it, P53 is a tumour suppressor gene. A mutation that stopped it working might be viewed as an oncogene but I don't think it's a big problem here. Each cell in you already has a couple of copies of it. If at least one of them works you shouldn't be at heightened risk of cancer (If both work then you should have a lowered risk). Adding a copy of a gene that codes for a version that doesn't work will just waste a bit of effort making a faulty protein. Your endogenous genes will still keep producing the same working versions as they always did. It shouldn't affect your risk of getting caner.

I note Mr Romney's suggestion of what to do about an incoming hurricane. "We believe this is a time for prayer." Yep, like it worked so well last time.

OK, I misheard or misunderstood the news coverage of the shooting (or maybe the initial reports I heard were wrong). I accept that the bystanders were not killed- but getting shot (even if it's a ricochet) doesn't generally improve your day. Having rules that would prevent the shooter getting a gun would be a great step forward. That premise is exactly the idea I was on about when I asked why anyone wants to make it easy for people to get guns. If it was (sufficiently) difficult then we wouldn't have this thread. Anything that doesn't address that question misses that point. The rest is window dressing. And no, as far as I recall nobody either in, or from the US has done me personally any harm. I was just pointing out that the circumstances of the original constitution (and its subsequent amendments) no longer apply so it might be time to look at it again. They did it with the 18th amendment, and they un-did it again with the 21st. Why not revisit the 2nd?

I have not been keeping a close eye on events in the Arab spring- perhaps I should have. But I'm fairly sure I have seen pictures of "rebels" with rather advanced weapons like APCs. I presume that they got these because people in the regular army decided to side with the populous rather than the authorities (and well done to them for doing so). The ordinary citizens don't have anything like the armaments that the government's forces have: but they took them on anyway. That's not a matter of having guns- it's a matter of having no choice. I think what happened was not anything to do with the number of guns on either side. They had just "had enough". Seriously, there are a few people in the US with heavy weapons but they wouldn't stand a cat in hell's chance against the armed forces so the idea of an "armed uprising" against Obama or Romney is a non- starter. If the army sided with the people then the people's guns wouldn't be needed. If they sided with the government then the people's guns would be irrelevant. Taking away the few tanks and RPGs in private hands really doesn't make a jot of difference to the effect of an "armed militia" would have in the US. But it does keep them out of the hands of loonies (well, apart from the nutters in the army- but at least there's some hope that they will get spotted before they go postal). Anyone who watched men in black knows what the reply to "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers!" would be. (though, rather unsportingly- the alien didn't wait for his fingers to cool)

Whether DNA is a code or not, the second line of the so-called proof i.e. "All codes we know the origin of are created by a mind" is begging the question. In my experience a lot of creationists wouldn't recognise a logical fallacy if it bit their hindquarters so... If, for the sake of debate, and for a given definition, we take it that DNA is a code then it's a code we know about. If it wasn't created by a mind then the second statement is false. So, in order for the argument to work, we have to assume (not only that DNA is a code) but more importantly, that it was created by a mind. If you assume that then it's axiomatically true, but it doesn't tell you anything. Imagine that I could actually prove that DNA wasn't created by a mind. The second statement would be clearly false. If, on the other hand, I could prove that it was created by a mind then the statement would be true. However in the absence of any such proof either way, it is impossible to know if the statement is true or not. Whatever view you take on it, further evidence may show you to be wrong. So you cannot rely on it.

I can point to any number of situations where all sorts of things happened. However I will point to the one near the Empire State Building where a bunch of properly trained people killed innocent bystanders and say that it strongly suggests that , if the patrons of the cinema had been armed there is every chance that they would have killed bystanders too. And, since the guy was wearing body armour, it's a long way from certain that he would have been included among an even worse death toll. OK so I should have put the word "always" in my sentence, but that sort of thing is often taken as read. Presumably, if one of your family had been shot by a police officer you wouldn't mind. Otherwise, you have to accept that, from the point of view of the victims of the stray shots, it would have been better if those shots hadn't been fired. Many guns gave rise to a worse situation than 1 gun. Also, I invite you to consider the limiting case where the number of guns was zero. I think the death toll would have been markedly reduced. Personally I think fewer dead people is an improvement. BTW, now with added irony perhaps you might want to actually answer this (rather than miss it) That rather misses the point that (unlike practically anything else you can buy) a gun is designed to make killing people easy. Why make it easy for nutters to kill lots of people? Re the constitution. That was then : this is now. Perhaps it should be amended to "A well regulated Militia (aided by the French , the presence of the Atlantic ocean making supply lines rather weak and the fact that the commander in chief of the opposition had lost his marbles) , being necessary to the security of a free State, (where "free" doesn't include Blacks, women, poor people or the natives) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (as long as they can afford them- that way we maintain a plutocracy), shall not be infringed. Was there no armed militia before the Arab spring? Did the sudden presence of arms lead to the uprising? Or was there something else.

Rigney, Your neighbourhood may be rough- that's not the point. Your country might have sentencing that's as bizarre as its gun laws. That's also not the point. What you are putting forward as some doomsday scenario ( "only perps, nuts and the police will have them") actually works quite well. Anyway, far be it from me to distract you from actually answering the questions that you were asked earlier. Given that the government actually said " I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller. When you said "The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns." Did you class yourself as a criminal or a fugitive? 'cos those are the only groups that the government is trying to take guns from.

"As many have stated time and time again, guns do not kill people, only psychopaths and wackos kill people. " Not really. People get killed in accidents too. "Fact is though, should all guns be taken away from sane and legitimate owners, only perps, nuts and the police will have them. If that should happen, good luck." Oh My God! How terrible that would be! Oh, hang on, that's the situation where I live. Odd as this may seem to many people across the pond, it's not actually a big problem. Any nutter waving a gun about on the street will very probably get shot by the police. Many of the crooks with guns are content with shooting one-another. It's not ideal, but it doesn't bother me much. Sometimes some poor soul gets caught in the crossfire. The culprits are generally (alas, not always) caught + held to account. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-19047312

There is another factor. I think it's less significant than it used to be but, as the phrase goes "steam engines are invented at steam engine time". As you say "Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory ". He was ahead of his time. The other bits of science that he needed hadn't been thought up yet.