Strange

The planets all have the Sun at one focus. They all have different directrices because they are not aligned in the same way (and are not even in the same plane). [Assuming I know what a directrix is!]

It seems a bit silly to try and apply logic to concepts based on religious belief. Maybe some people believe god’s creations are perfect. And maybe that gives rise to logical paradoxes. But the people who believe are not going to care at all. It is a matter of faith, not logic. It seems pointless to ask why people’s beliefs can be illogical. To some extent it is part of the definition of belief/faith that it is not based on logic or facts. And none of this has any relevance to evolution (or Sinatra). It also seems that “Reg” is discussing Darwin’s personal opinions rather than the science so I’m not sure what the point is.

So there is a largest natural number?

There are problems defining and measuring intelligence (and strength) in a way that is independent of culture and background. Common questions like “which word doesn’t belong with the others” is obviously culture specific, but so can “which shape doesn’t belong with the others”. And how do you separate any effects of “race” on strength from socio-cultural background. These things can be addressed, but there will always be complaints of bias (one way or another) and, from what I have seen, any effects are small and may not be significant. But that doesn’t stop people doing this sort of research. And it does have applications in medicine for example, where it seems that people from particular backgrounds may be more susceptible to diabetes or skin cancer or heart disease etc p.s. in case anyone missed it, the OP has been banned as a sock-puppet

Not being a parent, I can't really comment on this but, but it sounds reasonable: "I'm too lazy to explain or justify anything I do"

This "abuse" story appears to be the usual hate-filled nonsense about foreigners, full of lies and made-up "facts", from the Daily Mail: http://orthochristian.com/100398.html Situation normal, then.

It is hypothesised that "primordial" black holes could have been formed in the early universe and be small enough to be evaporating now. However, searches have yet to find any, and they don't appear to be similar to FRBs. http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/02/the-search-for-primordial-black-holes-continues

That is not a number because it has an infinite number of digits

Of course not. What do you find shocking about it? Why do you think it is “abuse”?

There is a suggestion that humans domesticated dogs (because they were useful to humans) while cats domesticated themselves (because humans were useful them).

Boston Dynamics’ SpotMini robot dancing to Uptown Funk

What is your point?

Good point. Sorry, for some reason this benefit of online validation escaped me earlier.

1949. LOL What an execrable piece of logic. "Science isn't questioned because it is dogma and dogma means it is not to be questioned" A prime example of the fallacy of begging the question. Do you have any examples of scientific "doctrines that are not to be questioned"? Fundamental things that have been, and are, questioned (some leading to changes, others being repeatedly confirmed): the sun going round the Earth universal and immutable time and space the infinite and eternal universe conservation of energy the presence of a medium for light the fixed continents on the surface of the Earth nothing can move faster than light Lorentz invariance / Galilean relativity And, as swansont points out, every single experiment tests a whole swathe of other "dogma" because it is based on them and if any of them were wrong then the results would be different. Scientists don't do their work just hoping to confirm what they already know they also hope to prove some fundamental thing wrong and discover new science. That is where the rewards (personal and literal) and accolades are.

What? Giving another license for free? I don't think so. No company is going to just give away licenses. I don't see how that is relevant.

Actually, it is more than that. It is not just attacking them but saying they are (partly) responsible for becoming a victim. Don't they count as objectionable. (Only partly joking. In the current environment, some republicans are expressing pretty despicable views. Starting from the top.)

If someone gives a negative vote because they don't like the content of a post, it is attacking the idea not the poster. If someone else decides to interpret that a different way, that is their problem. I generally assume an overall negative vote means that someone posts a lot of nonsense or objectionable material. I don't assume they are a Bad Person, that would be silly.

Great idea. Although I’m not entirely sure about: I suspect that is skewed by Android. Most development for Apple and Windows phones is in C/C++ In my experience (over 30 years in embedded systems) the vast majority of code is C/C++ with a small amount in Java, assembler and other languages

You will be able to read all the files; ie. documents, images, etc. You can copy them onto another disk/computer. You will not, in general, be able to copy any installed programs or their settings. (There are a few exceptions, generally open-source programs that are not written specifically for Windows). So, after re-installing a new version of Windows, you will have to re-install any applications that were on the computer. In some cases, this may mean purchasing them again to get a new license. But some companies will be helpful if you explain the problem - they might give you a new replacement license for no charge. (Even Adobe have done that for me in the past. Which is pretty bloody extraordinary.)

Java, C, C++, R, Python, Perl, Javascript, Haskell, Fortran, ML, F#, Scala, PHP, Ruby, Swift, C#, Objective-C, Bash, sh, Awk, Typescript, Go, Lisp, etc.

The first, because it is based on theory and evidence. The second one is, as you say, based on an unknown reason. Light passing through a galaxy is not relevant. Actually, there is so much light and dust in galaxies, we can't observe the red-shift of light through galaxies, we have to look between them. So I'm not sure what you are referring to. I can't really follow your argument here. But as far as I can see, the effect of light passing through a galaxy cluster would be 7.25x10-4 compared to a Z of say, 1. This is insignificant. However, this seems to be based on the assumption that the light "accumulates" red-shift as it passes through space. This is incorrect. The red-shift is purely due to the difference in scale factor between the source and us.

You seem to have serious reading comprehension problems. I know what the aether is. I was pointing out that your claim that the words "aether" and "other" are related is completely bogus. Therefore, your argument "that which was other than (what) matter(s)" is nonsense. Eise has no power to hide or delete your comments. You are delusional.

Light is not created as a proton. It doesn't have a "unique 'length' or number of wavelengths". Each colour has a different wavelength, not a different number of wavelengths. This is incomprehensible. I assume English is not your first language. Please don't post your ignorant nonsense in other people's threads.

Reported for posting non-scientific gibberish. You need evidence that your statements are true.

If you don't know what it is, how can you say it is a hoax?