John Cuthber

The biggest single problem is that there's not much CO2 in the air. At 400 ppm (by volume), each tonne of air only contains about 600 grammes of CO2. So you need to shift huge volumes of air, and that takes a lot of energy.

They didn't. Trump is in power. That says something about America. (Albeit, not uniquely)

What if it is someone else's priest. My perspective is that I don't recognise the authority of their priest or of their God. So, from my point of view, they have "apologised" to some random person. Somehow they think that makes it OK. Now, the latter point has some validity. To say to yourself " bother! I shouldn't have done that and I will try to do better next time!" is fine . (though, if you happen to recognise me next week I'd still hope you would say sorry) If "confession" makes it less likely that you would apologize to me (if the occasion arose) then that confession has done harm. That would be... just one of those things. (If toe strapping is a game then there's nothing to apologise for, and I was talking about accidentally doing so.). I might still think you were a bit of an oaf, but I'd get over it. What does the priest add to the process? And look where it sometimes gets them.

If you get a chance to, and in an ideal world, yes; but there are a myriad reasons why you wouldn't or couldn't. And I think we can agree that I should feel some sort of "relief" at getting the chance to do so. Both of us will be happier if I apologise to you for stepping on your toe. Such behaviour is socially "useful". My point is that, if I (knowingly) apologise to some random stranger instead, I don't "deserve" that sense of satisfaction. Religious confession is where you wrong someone, apologise to your imaginary friend, and feel that you did something useful in doing so.

Close, bu no cigar. This post was the one I made when I got back from the pub. As for pointing out your glitch- better late than never. Incidentally, "sober" isn't usually a verb. "Sober up" is. So you should say " It's good to sober up prior to replying, don't you think?" But I think you are right about your 2nd PS. (and I think some might benefit from an "I'm stoned" warning too.)

If I accidentally step on your toe should I apologise to some random stranger at a later date, or should I apologise to you?

I can make the comparison quite easily. I go to the bank and explain that I want to put solar panels on my house to heat it (instead of using oil fired heating). I don't have the cash to pay for it, so I want a loan. And, as you say, the panels last about 25 years so I will take out a loan over that period. (In principle,I can then take out another loan for new panels when I need them. And the bank will be happy to tell me what the loan would cost- in terms of monthly repayments. I can then simply compare one set of monthly bills (oil + delivery etc) with the other (loan repayment etc.) (There are maintenance costs too but I can simply include them in my calculation) Now, it's not unreasonable for me to assume that the price of oil will rise- and it's possible that the interest rate will change. But, for now, I can compare the two options. Incidentally... "You can't predict price of oil" "It can, and will, go high," You just predicted it.

And the shameful thing is that the church says we are forgiven- by someone's invisible friend- but that "feeling better" is only legitimate when the forgiveness is from the one actually wronged. Nasty bastards, aren't they?

Because Canadians don't want Trump, or his sort of politician. The question isn't why not, but why? What would Canadians gain?

Is this "confession" thing where you ask someone to tell you that their invisible friend says it's OK that you did bad things? I'm fairly sure that the acceptance must come before the confession. So, while acceptance maybe the first step, there is no requirement for confession to be any step. Its entirely possible to do without it.

Why would it be? Are you assuming you can't get the right answer?

Why? In any event, you can check by titration. HBr does not conduct.

Since January 2014 https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html

It is perfectly reasonable for science to favour a hypothesis which has (potentially) predictive utility and is testable.

Acetic acid will mix with gasoline. Vinegar will not. Yes, provided that the materials are stronger bases than the acetate ion. Most pesticides don't meet that criterion. It's possible that this myth came into being when "Bordeaux mixture" - a mix of copper carbonate, sulphate etc was widely used. The rest of your post is pretty much irrelevant to the removal of pesticides. Mind you, the whole topic is based on a misconception. Why bother to remove them?

And how did you come to the conclusion that such a process would work? Is it because vinegar is magical?

No It's important to have a pastime that you like doing. It doesn't have to be a job. 21st century economics is finally catching up with what Malthus said over 200 years ago. You can't have continuous growth if you have finite resources. That's going to rewrite the rulebook for economics to such an extent that I'm not sure that"economic system" will be recognisable.

You need medical help, rather than a web page. Consult a doctor.

I really don't understand this thread. Imagine I build a robot and I send it to do my job for me. I still get paid- because my work still gets done. But I am now free to do stuff like surfing the web or writing bad poetry or whatever. I can take time to cook better food, and I can spend more time walking in the hills near where I live. What's the downside? Now imagine that everyone does the same thing- all the work is done by robots and all of us are free to pursue our hobbies. Since everyone is in the same position, there's no need for anyone to rock the boat by saying that we shouldn't get paid. However, since nobody is actually doing anything important, there's no reason why anyone should be paid more (or less) than anyone else. And, since the machines are doing all the work, and they don't need paying, there's no reason why I need money to pay for goods and services. Sounds good to me.

What purpose does this blog serve?

Why not? Water does the same thing.

"How would an immune system 'allergic' to plain water would 'know' if someone just drunk plain water?" Very good question. The answer is that it could't. That's how we know that nobody is (or can be) allergic to water. Obviously, that leads to a different question; "What are these people suffering from?". Has anyone positively ruled out a psychological origin?

I'd have gone with "assistant for the blind" As written above, it's ambiguous.It could be interpreted in the same way as the "blind watchmaker".

I was wondering if you could get the same result by calculating the voltage needed to accelerate an electron ( or proton) to the escape velocity. Then use the capacitance of the earth (modeled as a conducting isolated sphere) to calculate the charge. However, I'm tired so I'm off to bed.

"Who said the Universe had a beginning?" Olber.