blue_cristal

Thank you, Molecule.

If non-conductor materials like a rubber or glass rod have no free electrons then why they get charged with friction ? Is it due induction ( atomic polarization ) or something else ?

I found an interesting article about eugenics: http://alexdracon.blogspot.com/2011/08/eugenics-throwing-out-baby-with-baths.html What do you think about the ideas expressed in this article?

Aren’t banks supposed to check every penny that comes in and comes out ? Yesterday afternoon I went to my bank ( I have been client of it for 13 years ) and I withdrew £ 200. I received 10 notes of £20.Then I took 5 of these notes and I added pocket small change in order to pay my Visa debt ( £ 104 ) in the same bank and then I kept the remaining 5 notes. During the night I went to the mall to buy food. The amount was £ 63.75 and I gave 4 notes of £20 to the cashier. She found out that one of the notes was false and I had to replace it ! I really feel outraged! It is the first time in my entire life that a bank gave me false money ! Since my knowledge on legal matters is far from satisfactory, I am not sure what would be the wiser move. I am not sure if I should report it to the police or just go straight to the bank, complain about it and demand the replacement of the false note. Before I take any action, I use to imagine the possible outcomes. So here are some of the possibilities: First one: after my complaining, the manager nicely apologizes and replaces my money. Second one: the manager is callous and indifferent and says that I should have examined every note to see if they are OK. Since I didn’t do it when I just received the money from the cashier I have no right to complain. But as far I know nobody suspects the reliability of the banks money. How many bank clients examine note by note or coin by coin to find out if they are all genuine before leaving the bank ? So, I would be grateful for any wise advice from those who have more experience with banks and legal matters. What should I do ( obviously is not worth taking a lawyer, his services would cost far more than £ 20 ) ?

I found an interesting video that reveals the “dark side” of human reproductive strategies. What is your opinion ?

LOL.... Since when criticism is a question ( sometimes, it can contain some challenging questions but this is not its main attribute )? Criticism is just an rational objection or rational judgemental analysis of a set of ideas.

…until some people started losing track on what and who they should reply to and delaying a lot to find out that "YT" means YouTube. But I concede, "YT" could also being interpreted as YT2095. By the way, YT2095, you did not reply to my criticism to your signature ( the Einstein's quote ). Why ?

How that can be if I am even quoting swansont in my reply ( post #44 )? Is there some epidemy of visual blindness in here ?

YT2095, are you sure that you did not drink something today ? My comment about the link was an answer to swansont’s post, NOT to you. My comment to you was just a criticism on your Einstein’s quote ( signature ).

And who said that it is a link ? I am criticizing your Einstein's quote.

"Science without religion is lame.” Einstein. Science do fine without religion. Actually, religion was (and still is ) an obstacle to science most of the time. You see, intelligent people also can say incredible bullshit. Our brain has a lot of specialized and compartmentalized neural circuitries. We can be a genius in a mental faculty and an idiot in another one. “Religion without science is blind." Einstein. Religion is based on blind faith ( dogma ) therefore it is blind WITH or WITHOUT science. In the past, the church supported science for while because they thought that science could prove the existence of god ( hahaha...) Instead, scientific findings started demolishing religious dogmas. Then the Church immediately started persecuted scientists and undermine science. So, as you can see, this is yet another Einstein’s bullshit.

Yep, Pat’s videos are my preferred ones in the YouTube. He usually makes good points with an articulate and crystalline clarity. Why didn’t you provide the link straight from YT ? Here it is: And if you want to see all his videos, go here: http://youtube.com/subscription_center?s=ywRyNIU2Dxs However, it is a shame that he seems to lack a solid scientific background. He seems to have an artistic side. He consider himself a comedian ( indeed ). Regarding MMM, he is not originated from an English-speaking country. Neither I, so I understand his problem. That is the reason for his preference for written text than voiced communication. But I think that his best videos are these: 1) “BEING ATHEIST IS NOT ENOUGH” 2) “Sexual Behavior - Rape , Cheating , Gold-digging ,etc” http://youtube.com/watch?v=As49mSwIWWw

No really. Actually the myth or even the “sacredness” of “absolute tolerance” is a dangerous and delusional fallacy. If you are tolerant to people who are radically intolerant, they might take full advantage of your tolerance and kill both, you ( and all unconditionally tolerant people ) and completely destroy the social contract based on tolerance. In other words, absolute tolerance is self-destructive. So is absolute freedom. Therefore tolerance and freedom should not cross a line where they become self-destructive.

Then keep it. That is what we call free thinking and free choice.

Why strong atheism ? He simply proposes to question anything that lacks scientific evidence. He does not propose a rigid belief of non-existence of gods. This would be an unverified belief. Any rigid belief without evidence is a dogma. Hum... 1) Anti-Dogmatism is more explicit than the term "sceptic". 2) I have the impression that sceptics are too much linked with a position that question only things that are not compatible with the established science. With such conservative position they may end up opposing new ideas and new paradigms in science. In other words, they might contribute for scientific dogmatism.