Strange

Can she? She might have the right to claim citizenship of those countries (although it is not clear if that is the case) but would they grant her citizenship? Even if they might, it would take years so, yes, she would be stateless.

Yes. I don't think the UK has a very meaningful treason law. I can't remember (and can't be bothered to check!) but I think it is just about attempts to insult the king, or something equally silly.

Most browsers have some sort of "Inspect Element" option (e.g on the right-click context menu) which will display the structure of the HTML and CSS that is rendered. This should let you select the part of the display that you want to modify and find out what class (as in .menu-item-text) is associated with it. Or, if it doesn't have a specific class, you might need to find a higher level element in the hierarchy that does and then specify the path to the thing you want to change.

Definitely not. Philosophy is not evidence based, in the same way that science is. It is (should be) a rigorous discipline and may use mathematics (particularly formal logic and set theory) but that's about where the similarity ends. Philosophy is important for describing and defining how science works (and, sometimes, why it doesn't). With regard to your statement about waves, the question of whether the waves are "real" or not is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. (As is the question about what "real" means.) Science deals with things we can measure. We can measure the wave and so it is real as far as science is concerned.

It is not simple but the Home Office has already spent a lot of time thinking about exactly this sort of problem and has policy documents in place. They provide an example that is almost exactly this one and the recommenced action is: Manage their return to UK Carry out criminal investigation - and, obviously, follow up with prosecution, etc. if appropriate Undertake deradicalisation Ensure the child is cared for One of the contributors to this document was Sajid Javid, so I can only assume he is taking his own "radical" action as part of a leadership campaign. Document here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716907/140618_CCS207_CCS0218929798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf

Interesting idea. They haven't (as far as I know) tested that for this illusion. Some of the others specifically depend on feeding different signs to each ear. I'll try it in one ear later. But as I have already been "converted" that may not be a valid test. Unless I don't hear it with one ear... It is interesting the the effect "sticks" for so long. I thought it might wear off after a while.

That may be OK when the state is taking action against someone you disagree with. But what if you find yourself opposed to the government of the day and they start deporting, locking up or even executing people who oppose them. Would you still think it is OK for there to be no due process? The whole point of having legal processes, an independent judiciary and human rights legislation is that it protects everyone, not just the people that you agree with.

But it is important to not that a patent cannot protect an idea. It can only protect a "device" that does something using that idea. And the patent has to be published, and provide enough detail that someone else can implement the same thing. And copyright cannot protect an idea; it can only protect a specific written description (or drawing) of the idea. The only way to protect an idea is to keep it secret!

That's interesting, because that is the one where listeners are singing what they heard. So you can hear the change in pitch there. Presumably, there must be some other information, in particular frequency ranges maybe, that is required for the illusion to work, that you don't pick up on.

I am not aware that "ideas" are stolen very often. There are occasional examples of plagiarism, where someone will pass off someone else's work as their own. But with so much research published on the Internet, anti-plagiarism software can detect this (even if people change a few words). If the research has immediate and valuable commercial possibilities, then the researchers are quite likely to set up a company (with patents, trademarks, etc) to exploit and protect their work.

And lacking due process. And almost certainly not legal.

We have all seen optical illusions, but auditory illusions are a bit rarer. Here is an example I remember reading about years ago. Hearing a spoken phrase repeatedly can make it sound as if it is sung. And after that, you can't hear it as not being sung! http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=212 (This is also a good example of experimental method because of the various ways they demonstrate that the effect is real and the same for multiple listeners.)

Can you clarify if that is a hyphen or a subtraction: in other words does this mean the range is the pair of digits ("biggest to smallest") or the difference between them ("biggest minus smallest")?

! Moderator Note Closing this as it is being discussed here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118062-can-you-find-the-number/

They form an interference pattern. A small but vital distinction. The fact that an interference pattern is formed is a measurement of the wave. If you know the distance between the slits, you can calculate the wavelength of the wave from the interference pattern. Important to note that this was not a "discovery" but a test of a prediction of theory (just in case your comment could be misinterpreted as it being an unexpected result when the experiment was done).

Because you are talking about matter flowing into an empty (or emptier) region of space. It doesn't exist. Any space that exists is part of our universe. It s not expanding "into" anything. That space was always full.

! Moderator Note As the OP appears not to be interested in discussion, this thread is closed. ! Moderator Note But thank you to those who brought some interesting science into it.

What does it mean for a universe to "split"? What is the difference between "when" and "as"?

Do you have a reference for that? The only reference to "Windows 7 Lite" I could find on the Microsoft site was a discussion about it not being a Microsoft product. There were the "Starter Edition" and "Home Premium" versions of W7, which were supposedly more suitable for netbooks. Even if it was, at one time, an official product, all the caveats in my post still apply.

As far as I can tell, it is not a Microsoft product. It is a "hacked" version of Windows 7 with various things removed. Risks: It is not supported There will be no updates (including bug fixes and security patches) You will be vulnerable to malware. The non-standard changes might case it to be unstable You are downloading from a website distributing illegal software You can't be sure it isn't infected (deliberately or accidentally) with malware But apart from that ...

That might depend on what you think of modern Russia!

You have answered your own question! It is those bonds that make things stick together. Plus, in some cases, the other interactions that Sensei mentions. But I think they are usually quite weak.

You assume people are not reading or understanding because they disagree with you. The problem is that you are wrong and refuse to admit it. I have provided references to research that shows it is not a meaningful or useful concept. You have provided your assertions and beliefs. At least one definition of race is based on genetics. Another assertion without evidence. Yes, all you do is repeat yourself. I will report this thread for soapboxing as you are unable to engage in discussion. For Christs sake! Don't make me repeat myself every hour! Instead please reread my posts every hour. That would be less work on my part. This is getting ridiculous. It's like you guys know my opinion better than I do. As I was saying before it's like you have preconceived ideas of anyone that talks about race. You have your canned replies that don't pertain to my remarks. It was you that said race is based on superficial appearances. So I picked a superficial appearance which must, by your definition, define a race. Instead of getting annoyed that people are pointing out the inconsistencies and errors in your claims, maybe you should stop making baseless claims. So who gets to choose which superficial differences are significant and which are not? Not really. Over time populations that have migrated often tend to look like the "native" inhabitants. For example, gypsies (in Europe) look European. It is pretty much only their language that show they originated in India. The evidence still shows you are wrong.

The evidence shows that the universe has always been uniformly full of matter. And it is meaningless to talk about matter “accelerating away from the universe” - there is no outside the universe for it to accelerate into. There is no force available to make it accelerate. It is up to you to show that it can. But your guesses are contradicted by evidence. And you can’t make any predictions.

Humans have wings. Even the flightless ones. And humans are descended from dinosaurs. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Even though science shows it to be a meaningless concept? Presumably you also think we should bring back phrenology, the aether and phlogiston. And what does ornithology tell us about humans? So all red-headed people are one race? And all those with blue eyes are a different race? Then do we say that redheads with blue eyes are a different race from redheads with brown eyes? If you put 100 redheads, 100 blonds and 100 dark-haired people, you could sort them by their race because of the superficial difference of hair colour. I bet Egyptians, Sudanese and Turks would disagree with that. And, of course, you could sort out the members of each race by the superficial difference of the language they spoke.