Acme

Speaking of 3-d printed hands, check this out. If it's a fad, it's a good one. Dad Uses 3D Printer To Make His Son A Prosthetic Hand (VIDEO)

source Your last 2 questions are not the only possibilities nor are they mutually exclusive. When you label the Cuban system 'corrupt', haven't you used the same stylistic form of labeling that you decry in other political threads?

The probability of Swansort existing is 1. This is also the probability that what you are presenting is gobbledygook. On a scale of one to ten I give you a schmeeblegorkan.

Liber AL vel Legis

Has anyone bothered to check dissolved gas levels in that Pierian spring?

So Commander, just wondering about the significance -if any- of using balls and of your illustration. Is the puzzle the same if say we used cubes & not balls? Is the arrangement of balls or some other element of the illustration a subtle hint? I couldn't improve on Imatfaal's solution of 6, I didn't quite follow Tar's 5, and the best I could do by extending my starting with 2 groups of 19 and a lone ball was 11 weighings.

The absorption of carbon dioxide and methane by the oceans is increasing their acidification and that is a reason for concern beyond the usually mentioned problems of climate change. Millions of Tons of Seafloor Methane Could Be Released Ocean acidification

The one I gave does and it is correct.

I have to rush off to enjoy some dental work so I will just give a quick answer. First though, I have to ask what shape other than spherical are balls?

A thing either is a magnet or it is not a magnet. Your WAG and the OP's WAG is useless.

But there is gravity (and no such thing as 'like a magnet') so your trickiness is useless.

You did.

Balloon. Earth's magnetic field is far too weak to push against another magnet sufficiently to lift it, whether it's an electromagnet or permanent magnetic. If it were, magnets would float.

Roger. However, if you are saying that life and it's constituent parts are predestined I strongly disagree. Saying can and predictively in the same sentence as you have is a contradiction of terms. Just because something can happen does not mean [say predict] that it will happen.

Methane release is as methane release does. Millions of Tons of Seafloor Methane Could Be Released Dissociation of Cascadia margin gas hydrates in response to contemporary ocean warming @ Geophysical Research Letters

No, DNA has not been found in meteorites. Building block of DNA yes, but not DNA itself. NASA Researchers: DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space @ NASA

So too if you were here to write it. (Addiction is not new.) If nothing else I came across 'this sort of behavior' when I read you post. Not fascinating, no. Mildly interesting, perhaps. Pseudonyms and anonymity are not new.

No, the title of the book I wanted you to read is The Authoritarians. If you would not succumb to knee-jerk reactions and actually read what is writ you might come to the facts. The term insane in the thread title came from a blog in the opening post which led to an article at a university which led to the meta-study which led to the psychological study book titled The Authoritarians which lay in the house that Jack built. I'll be back in the new year, but I'm taking a hiatus from the insanity for the holiday.

Oh the horror! Name That Ben

I'll have a look when I get time. I'll roll my eyes as I please. I also asked you to declare if you read the book and it was like pulling teeth to get an answer. I ask you once to repeat defamatory statements and you're on it lickety split. Frankly I have no confidence in your point making. You pretty much clinched that for me when you claimed ignorance as to why reading Altemeyer's book was relevant to the discussion of Altemeyer's book.

So you decry my examples as shocking and fallacious but then go on to take the same course. I looked into the original but it was too expensive for me. I went with Altemeyer out of all the meta-study group because it was the first I found free online. My interest here is trying to get some understanding for the whacky behavior that comes to my attention by conservative politicians and their followers. Clearly the behavior has drawn the attention of more than the casual observer. As the authors in the meta-study say, "For more than half a century, psychologists have been tracking the hypothesis that different psychological motives and tendencies underlie ideological differences between the political left and the right." I find it odd that you on the one hand declared you didn't buy into the division yet on the other hand argue with such gusto over the difference.

Please point out where in the paper or conclusions that voting records or other measures are used to avoid making any specific statements about the results. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

The paper is behind a pay-wall. Leftists are classic weak characters. They dish out abuse by the bucketload but cannot take it when they get it back. Witness the Loughner hysteria.source

No. That paper started the discussion. What we are now discussing -and reading- is Altemeyer's book which is referenced in the meta-study. Whether or not you -or anyone else- has read Altemeyer's book is relevant because that is what we are currently discussing. So far you have not referenced the book directly other than to list a single questionnaire, rather you have been referencing what others say about it. Altemeyer says as much in the book, so why not quote him since it is his book we are currently discussing? No it doesn't. Political conservatism is relevant to specific venues and again Altemeyer makes that clear in his book. Altemeyer -in his book- acknowledges different scales and qualifies them in relation to his own. You read the book so you know that already. Just because there are alternate measures does not mean a particular measure is invalid. Again, Altemeyer discusses different measures in the book and delineates differences and likenesses to his measures. Taking different measures is a hallmark of science isn't it? Getting different perspectives to better understand the situation under study and all that. Again, Altemeyer discusses the language used and its evolution in the book. You've read it so you know that and so I don't understand why you don't refer to it from the book. So what. Don't alternate studies take a narrow/specific focus, albeit different from others? The quote I gave about SDO was from Altemeyer's book and since you read the book you might have recognized it. Again, he was juxtaposing different results from different approaches in order to broaden the perspective. Isn't giving the scales acknowledging non-equivalence? They report the scales so the reader can take into account differences. So what? No one is claiming conservatives are stark raving mad (ike your Ray fella does about liberals), rather as the title says they are mildly insane. Small effect, but an effect. So? I have been saying all along that Altemeyer is straight up about deficiencies. Of course again we are currently discussing his book The Authoritarians. Every time you bring up Ray I will favor the board with one of the quotes from his page. I challenge you to find anything of similar flavor in The Authoritarians. Bias is as bias does. Leftists think that utopia can be coerced into existence -- so no dishonesty or brutality is beyond them in pursuit of that "noble" goal. source

Why exactly have you avoided answering such a simple question?