John Cuthber

Some sort of hour glass that, if he doesn't keep turning it over, runs out of sand and trips the gunpowder. Not sure it's possible but it meets the " criterion for any given definition of "quickly"

I'm sure I am not the only one looking forward to the evidence for this (along with some evidence for your other claims). Incidentally, it's an acceptable shorthand within the scientific community to refer to " a gene for" when you actually mean (some set of genes which interact...."

What do you mean by that? By whom was it inferred, and from what?

Not if you want building bricks or wires or TV screens or engines or shoes or chairs or... well most things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore#2019 The crime rate is low, but not zero and it must, at some level be cultural rather than due only to law enforcement.

On the whole, in those circumstances I try to work out why they are being dicks. It's often because they have been misled. "Should I leave because I think the law should punish "minor things" worse? They already punish it but its not effective. " So, you think we should do more of the ineffective thing... OK...? Do you see why others might not feel that's going to help as much as tackling the actual cause?

Then, to be consistent, because this site is tolerant, you should leave.

What is it with physics and barbecues? Back in 1957 some physicists discovered that red hot carbon burns if you blow air through it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire It seems that not everyone is aware of this fact "The carbon nano tubes would form the leading edges and be heated by the lasers, to a very high temperature" Woosh! (once)

What might be considered "practical" would be the idea that, if we could work out which young people were going to continue in their medical careers for longest, we could focus training on them. But choosing sex as a proxy for that "career length" is discriminatory. Also, as has been pointed out, there's an aging population. That gives people longer careers. So the "time out" raising a family becomes less significant as a fraction of the whole career. Parents can return to medical practice after raising kids. So, the given "reason" for the biassed choice doesn't actually make sense. The only way that prejudicing the system against women can be made to look "sensible" is to distort the effects of an aging population.

Slavery was practical... As far as I can tell, the students pay the university.

I'm trying to get back to the topic; specifically the bit that you posted and which is missing. What did it say?

What did anyone delete? It's extraordinary for this site to delete stuff.

OK, let's try again. Now, given that StringJunky's comment "Confucius says: "Man with watch always knows the time. Man with two watches is never sure." wasn't made because he lacks the intellect to recognise that Confucius didn't have a watch, it can't be intellect shaming to comment on it. SJ's intellect was never in dispute here. So, perhaps, Allthechemist could ignore the bit that's explicitly OT, and address the other point which Swansont and I raised. It's not an issue of practicality.

No, it's attributed to Jesus, but it's a quote from Matthew. Chapter 4i

Not that I'm aware of. This is apparently his idea of an opening gambit. Two of us disputed it... The contention was made that the behaviour was simply "practical". and

I can see why you have an issue with It's not an "excuse", it's reality. It really was a pretty obvious (if poor) joke. Anyone who did any research and looked at my previous posts would see that my humour is often a bit obscure and/ or blunt. That's a dreadful misrepresentation. Gandhi would have used the proper plural; "fora". I may have underestimated your potential with respect to irony. No, it really is called irony.

I made a joke about a joke. What I am having trouble with is you not recognising that. Aha! You don't understand irony. OK, go + look it up. No, you plainly do not, or you would be able to make the distinction. My word! How did that happen? Could it be because someone ignored the meat of a post and decided to go on a crusade about a trivial joke about a joke?

What's that meant to mean?

That's two different things. Yes, people who talk about "a gene for whatever", unless they are using it as shorthand, or where "whatever" is a single protein are wrong. But, as I keep asking, if the "design" isn't in the genome, where is it? The link's indirect, but the genes really do make pretty much everything.

The OP's contention is And, for that to be true the information has to be stored somewhere else. Where is it? It's tautological to say it's in the proteins etc because the proteins are made according to the DNA blueprint. Some proteins fold themselves into vitally important configurations- they do that because the sequence - lain down in the DNA means that's the lowest energy state and they "fall" into it. Some proteins need accessory molecules to fold them. Well guess where the instructions for those accessories are... Saying "There needs to be protein (etc) infrastructure to read the DNA" is true, but irrelevant. I need eyes to read a book, but it doesn't make them part of the story. And once we have addressed this one we can go on to the second thing the OP said which isn't much better. (So called "reason 2" was a repeat of 1)

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question. If the data's not in the DNA, where is it? (for extra credit, how is it encoded and transmitted to the next generation?) The OP claimed that

So is ονοματοποιημένος Any particular reason?

What do you mean by that?

How long would they need to jail you for (in spite of your having done nothing wrong) before you came to respect them?

Not really. See above.