MigL

I would go even further, as you can make the argument that all energy could be associated with the configuration of the system. My citation for this, would be AJB.

I have always defended J McCain, even when some of those who are currently 'outraged' by D Trump's attitude towards him, were less than enthusiastic about his character and fitness for POTUS. But how far do you go in blaming D Trump supporters for his actions ? And if you're going to blame them for having elected him and still supporting him, how about the roughly 45% of eligible voters who didn't cast a vote in the last election ? One could argue that if they cared about the outcome, they would have got out their vote.Obviously they didn't care, or were happy with the outcome. Or, for that matter, if they were so concerned about the outcome, why didn't Democrats and people who voted for H Clinton try to sway other's opinions to vote against D Trump ? Did they not care enough to avoid having a lying, boorish buffoon for a president ? You see how quickly it gets ridiculous when you start playing the blame game. You convince people by educating them, not by blaming them.

I thought it was supposed to be K.M.B. And the year updated every Jan. 6th.

Two of the premises are probably wrong. There is most likely no reality we can all agree on, as we base 'reality' on the experiments/measurements we perform, and these are subject to the constraints outlined in the OP. As for freedom of choice, I would think Heisenberg turns that on its head; some things we just cannot know. ( Can't throw out the idea of locality though; that would cause even more problems with 'reality' ) that leaves the choices that there is no 'actual' reality, or that we are forbidden to realise what it is.

A bit of revisionism there, CharonY. You recall that the Weimar Republic was struggling economically in 1923, mostly due to war reparations which the Germans greatly resented. It was at this point that France chose to invade/occupy the Ruhr valley , central to German industry, and causing further resentment among Germans who had convinced themselves they had NOT lost the Great war, as there had been no fighting on, or invasion of the German homeland. in effect, things were already bad, but made much worse by the events of 1929.

For the trait to have evolved, means it needs to be coded genetically. AFAIK there is no gay gene, but I'm far from an expert on the matter, so there could be various gene combinations which result in homosexuality. Other factors which affect us are hormonal/enzyme changes while in the womb, and environment/upbringing. It could depend on any of these factors, or combinations thereof.

Interesting discussion in the wake of the Boeing 737 MAX crashes and subsequent groundings over most of the world. This is bad news for Boeing ( Airbus is popping champagne corks ). If the problem is traced to their fly-by-wire software control laws, Boeing is in for a huge lawsuit. The nature of the two crashes seems to point to an unrequested downward pitch shortly after take-off. All airliners are naturally stable ( as opposed to some unstable military aircraft ), so there should be very little reason to re-write control laws for a modified, or even new, aircraft. Unless mistakes were made in the coding.

CharonY has already alluded to it... If you want other people to find you interesting, talk about what interests them.

I don't see what is so strange. And why it needs to be attributed to NAZI or anti-Semitic influences ( not that anti-Semitism wasn't an issue in those times ). GR was a big 'leap', as opposed to SR which was ready to be accepted by many proponents, and not widely understood or embraced. And mostly on philosophical grounds. Don't forget that A Einstein himself, argued against QM until the 1950s, with people he considered good friends ( N Bohr ); again, purely on philosophical grounds.

Some of these candidates had better watch out. That despot you guys elected as POTUS has actually threatened violence against his opposition, by his supporters in the armed Forces, Law Enforcement, and Bikers for Trump ( ?), in a Breitbart interview. Not very Presidential ( actually kind of scary ). Everytime I think he can't sink any lower, he proves me wrong.

They haven't been able to make an exit deal. And they can't leave without a deal. What difference will a couple more months make that they couldn't accomplish in two years ? Have a new referendum already ! And not a binary ( yes or no ) choice, but a referendum which gives the UK a mandate to change those aspects of the EU which have resulted in the estrangement from the continent, and, to fix those problems There are plenty of other countries in Europe that are dissatisfied with the current arrangement and concentration of power, but singularly, they are not very influential. The UK could be their champion for change, as that can only be achieved from within the group.

Always love, Dimreepr, never hate. But you have heard of 'tough' love, haven't you ?

I see. I can just imagine how many new members ISIS will recruit now that they've been given a sound thrashing by the international community. I guess they would have had less members if we'd been 'nice' to them and let them brutalize the whole region. Maybe if we'd been nice to A Hitler and let him have Poland, he wouldn't have tried to take all of Europe. And If we had let North Korea take the southern peninsula, Kim Jung Un would be a nice respectful head of state today. And why not. Let J Stalin have Eastern Europe. It's a small price to pay for good relations with the Russians. ( I know, a little 'over the top', but it illustrates my point ) No, some evil just has to be stamped out.

Not quite sure I follow your logic. DrP… "just dismantle the church and tell them to fo. They deserve no authority over any of us at all" No-one is forcing you to be a member of that 'club' and follow its rules. Why do you think you get to tell others what to do ? Your opinion is appreciated though.

So , how many more 'deals' have to be voted down before you Brits demand another referendum from your politicians ?

I must be obtuse. Please enlighten me.

Ten oz said: "It is terrifying for the nation that we have a President who is purposefully scheming to keep Congress dysfunctional for long as possible. Just does thing to intentionally waste as much of everyones time as humanly possible. Yet it is a brilliant strategy for Trump personally because it forces his opposition to expend time, resources, political capital, and etc fighting meaningless battles." I remember someone suggesting you give him money for his damn wall, it would be cheaper in the long run. Then fight the battles which have significance ( i.e. get D Trump impeached and out of office ). And then you won't have to worry about actually building it. I'm glad you finally came around to realizing that D Trump is 'playing' Congress. Oh, and the original question by Nod2003 was: "are any DEMOCRATS advocating removing those sections of wall which already exist?" Not declared Democratic candidates, Presidential candidates, or what have you; nor hypothetical or declared policy. JCM answered the question factually; INow did not. You and INow then went on a spin campaign about declaring candidacy, chances of winning, etc., when you could have simply said "You are right, JCM" ( and it wouldn't have dragged on, INow )

Killing/brutalizing their neighbors to get back at the West John ? I know ISIS ideology doesn't make sense, but that is really stretching.

Thanks for the feedback guys. To be clear, I wasn't advocating for continuance of the thread. I just wanted to know the reasoning behind the closure. And I appreciate not getting the "Because this is not a democracy." spiel.

A few hours ago a thread was closed because " we should not discuss any topic about to make explosives". ( Can I make explosives with my own pee ? ) Seems a bit like 'closing the barn door after the horse is gone'. You can watch a 1967 episode of StarTrek TOS. to find out how to make gunpowder. ( and if you can find a 4 inch bamboo shoot, and a fist sized diamond, you can make a mortar, and kill a Gorn ) You can find a multitude of sites on the 'interwebs' disseminating such information. And even elementary ( high school level ) textbooks, available at any public library, will give you that information. If we are primarily a discussion/teaching site, should we be providing safe handling information to people who can get the know-how from other readily available sources, but who may well injure themselves ( and others ), because they are not aware of the dangers ?

I know, but the point I was trying to make wouldn't have 'jumped out' as much, unless I threw in an 'over-the-top' exaggeration in there. ( just being honest )

All valid points INow. Offering a 'way back' does seem reasonable. But I have to wonder, how many Germans, after WW2, claimed they were not NAZIs, or were simply following orders. Should we have just given them a hug and said " All's well; Too bad about the 60 million dead in Europe" I would be willing to bet every surviving ISIS member is now scurrying like a rat trying to hide amongst the general population, and claiming they never belonged to that group, or were duped into joining it. But I do agree, it looks bad to strip her citizenship, and not bringing her back to trial. John, ISIS doesn't think the West is evil; Nor biased against non-Christian and non-whites. They think ANYONE who doesn't share their ideology ( medieval religious zealotry ) is evil. Did you not notice how many fellow countrymen were murdered in mass graves, and how many fellow countrywomen were enslaved ? ISIS was never about striking back at western oppressors ( no matter what 'bleeding heart apologists' tell you ), it was about forming a new Caliphate and forcing a whole area of the world to live by their oppressive rules. Its too bad there is no law against stupidity, otherwise Shamima Begum, and her ilk, would be easily tried and convicted.

She seems to be the Congressional equivalent of Dimreepr. Certainly not in her views, but in the brevity and lack of context. I don't think that makes either a racist.

You were not the only one who has suggested that, John. But some have suggested 'consideration' of her baby's death. And I may have ( mistakenly ? ) taken that as 'Hasn't she already suffered enough ?'

Totally different scenario, Dimreepr.