MigL

Sure. And all Muslims are bad because they continue to support and identify with terrorists ? You share similar ideals/morals therefore you are just as bad ? ( that argument was addressed in my original post against generalization )

Maybe instead of trying to be clever and scoffing at others ideas you could tell us how you would intend to fight the fundamentalist thinking which leads to terror ?

While I agree with you wholeheartedly about the US president ( and a lot of the Republican party ), I just took exception to the term 'conservatives'; Which unjustly includes all American ( even D D Eisenhower ? ) and international conservatives. ( sorry for the off-topic jaunt )

So your solution is to pretend there are no terrorists and just live life as if everything is hunky-dory and nothing is happening? Otherwise they've won ? You have a strange definition of winning/losing.

Why does everyone do this ? "Conservatives often challenge..." In the last Canadian federal election I voted Conservative ( but I previously voted Liberal ), so that makes me currently a Conservative supporter, but that may change depending on party policies of the next election. And Canadian Conservatives are much more liberal than American Democrats. Why is there a need to generalize all those negative attributes to me, or to someone who may have voted Conservative in England, or to even American Conservatives. If I said all Muslims are terrorists, or all Catholics are Nazis a lot of people would take exception to that. And if the argument is that the "good' Conservatives are enabling the bad Conservatives with their support, then that argument can also be made for good Muslims, Catholics, etc. So, can we have a little less generalizing, please ? ( and yes, my opening line, where I do the same, was intentional )

You are applying the North American norm, in an international forum, to a world wide religion, Swansont. You can have 'art' depicting Christ and bodily excrement, and nothing much happens; Yet you publish cartoons depicting Mohammed and your offices and employees get shot up. You can write an 'offensive' book about Christianity , as D Brown did, and not much happens; Yet if Salman Rushdie writes a book, Imans all over the world are calling for his death and there are protests in the streets of every Muslim country. That IS an attempt to force respect for the religion through intimidation. No-one has the 'right' to not be offended.

The only science in your post is the 1st line, Andy. Keep the rest for your science fiction novel.

Whether it still goes on or not is not the issue being discussed. And I agree that something needs to be done; I'm just not sure AA is the right vehicle for change. The past ( and arguably present ) wrongs come to light when two equally qualified people apply for the same position and a choice is made to fill that position based on skin color, sex and orientation, age, etc. Always to the detriment of the visible minority. AA provides a 'solution' to this problem, such that, when two equally qualified people apply to fill the same position, the choice is AGAIN based on skin color, sex and orientation, age, etc. Except that now it is to the detriment of the non-visible minority. And I'm not too comfortable with that. In another thread Imatfaal and CharonY made the argument that human rights must apply to everyone. Why is it OK to deny even 1% of non-visible minorities their rights, in order to correct the wrongs perpetrated against much larger numbers of visible minorities ?

My opinion n the subject is very conflicted. ( discussing the Trump Administration's policy would have been easier ) While I understand the need to right past wrongs which have disadvantaged minorities, combatting the effects of racism with more racism doesn't seem to make sense.

Is this a discussion of Affirmative Action or a discussion of the Trump Administration's policy regarding it ?

Cats trained as spies, DrmDoc ? interesting but unworkable, I'm afraid. I don't see a problem with the black tux, Omega Seamaster or even the Walther PPK. But shifting gears in the Aston Martin would be a problem.

And I see a lot of parallels, CharonY. One woman, and O Kahder was only one person who launched his lawsuit. There are no independent health providers in Canada. While health care is run by the provinces, oversight and universality is the responsibility of the federal government. so if you can make the argument that the Canadian government didn't do enough to protect the rights of O Kahder when he was captured, convicted and imprisoned by Americans, you can certainly make the case that they didn't do enough to protect the rights of these women. Legal experts in the US certainly aren't questioning the conviction, and the family of the slain medic was awarded a wrongful death conviction against O Kahder, which the Canadian government has seen fit to disregard, and hide O Kahder's $ 10.5mil, so it cannot be touched. I guess protecting the rights of aboriginal women isn't as 'glamorous' as protecting the rights of a terrorist. But you're right, this is off topic. I won't bring it up again. But I'd rather my government treated our aboriginals better.

If by 'substance' you mean solidity or presence I would think not. Elementary particles are dimensionless, and compound particles such as protons/neutrons are, as a result,essentially empty space, as are the atoms and molecules they make up. It is the fields and interactions which give rise to those properties you inquire about. As a matter of fact, QFT says the fields and interactions are even responsible for the particles.

Not sure I understand your definition of 'legal', DrmDoc. Had the courts let it pass, the immigration ban would have been perfectly legal. And they have given the go-ahead for a more limited ban, so it will be legal. Immoral maybe, but once law, certainly legal.

No the EM field does not expand. The field is 'there', and if enough energy is localized ( excitation of the field ) at a particular position, we have the real 'particle' of that field. If that excitation is 'stabilized' by other particles/excitations of their particular fields, it can remain localized ( in a nucleus, say ). There are no 'boys' here, like you might be used to dealing with. Just men and women.

Really ? He always seemed so frail. I would have thought 70 kg.

It wasn't directed at anyone here, or violated women, but rather my Prime Minister. I will wait and see what ( if any ) compensation these women receive.

Now the foul-mouthed 'Gooch' has been escorted out of the ( white ) building too. This administration is falling apart. ( not quickly enough, I might add )

I don't think so. There would have been no trial involved.

Don't worry. All those women's rights were violated. Our Prime Minister will issue each one of them an apology and $10.5 mill in compensation. Oh, wait a minute. They're not terrorists. Forget that !

The Observable Universe is finite. Anything outside of that may as well not exist, because it can never affect us in any way.

"Inertial mass is massless' That makes no sense. Read a little about the subject before making baseless assertions.

Everyone at my work is a First-Aid responder, and I've personally had training for over 25 yrs in both CPR and defibrillator use. If a defibrillator is not available, good old fashioned CPR, consisting of chest compressions and assisted breathing is still effective until emergency medical assistance arrives. It needs to be started immediately as we are taught you have a 4 min window before irreparable brain damage. The compressions actually compress the heart and circulate some blood to the brain. Compressions are approx. 100-120 per minute ( to the tune of the BeeGee's 'Stayn' Alive ') And you keep going until Emergency Medical assistance arrives, or someone else takes over.

It was good to see J McCain get up from his hospital bed to cast the deciding vote against the gutting of ObamaCare. His reason for voting ( along with two other Republicans ) against party lines - " Because it's the right thing to do "

Maybe it was a misquote, but one of the scientists rates the explosive power of a GRB as just below the Big Bang. Which of course, was not an explosion. ( no wonder we have so many misconceptions )