Strange

1. Obama, in general, used fewer (or no more) first person pronouns than most other presidents and/or candidates. And yet he was consistently accused of doing so (obviously not based on any data). 2. There is no evidence that it is an indication of narcissism. According to the "theory" created by these news outlets, Trump should be far more narcissistic because he uses far more first person pronouns. (And, of course, there is no reason to believe that.)

But, in this case, it is worse than that, because when you look at the data you find that cops eat less (fewer, if you insist) donuts than the average citizen. (But you continue to hear the same claims made over and over.)

Obviously, I don't have a horse in this race (as they say) and this ship has sailed (to mix metaphors) but this is an interesting (and bloody annoying) cross-over of politics and science (or lack of). There have been frequent conservative media (is that all the media in the US? I don't know) references to the "fact" that Obama uses a a lot of first person pronouns ("I", "me", "my", etc) and this is a symptom of how self-centred he is. Not surprisingly, this turns out to be bollocks (on both counts). The latest (and possibly last) such story is analysed here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=30515 Whatever your politics, there is no excuse for this sort of reporting. (Note that there have been other (similarly bogus) claims about other politicians (such as Trump, recently) which Language Log have also looked at, if you are interested.)

Note that this is true, but it is not the reason that nothing can escape from a black hole.

So its your fault. Just because of you, we all have to put up with it!

What evidence do you have that the laws of physics are different in super-clusters? Then why is the red-shift the same in all directions? And how do explain the presence of the cosmic microwave background?

There are some good ideas in this, such as aligning the Fn keys with the corresponding numbers (which they are on the keyboard I am currently using). Making the Esc key bigger is good (although you don't want to hit it by accident!). You could also get rid of the (utterly pointless and very annoying) Caps Lock.

I didn't say it was wrong, so not an ad hominem. I just said it was incoherent and nearly impossible to make sense of. It also has no apparent connection to the subject of the thread. Why base 27? What you are saying would be true in any base. If it were true. It would only be true if root 2 is normal. It is not known whether it is normal or not and hence it may or may not be true. I guess it must take a particularly sort of disordered thinking to see a connection. If you delete the parts of root 2 you don't like, then it will no longer be the square root of 2. That I agree with (though it can be conscious or unconscious). Even though it has no apparent connection to anything else you have said.

One problem would be retraining all the people who have learned to touch type. Also a grid layout is probably not the most ergonomic - really only suited for single finger typists. If you look at keyboards that have been designed based on research, they have sloping keys laid out in curved rows. As for the order of letters, I think there is some truth in imatfaal's comment. But I think it was more to stop the keybars (the bits with the letters on) from getting tangled by arranging them so the ones that might be used close together (in time) further part so they had more room to move past one another. I believe there are still ergonomic benefits to having the more frequently used letters closer to the "home" keys. So I don't think an alphabetic layout would work either. BTW when I worked as lab technician, one of the other lab techs came up with the same idea. He wanted to keep it secret (he thought he was being spied on and his flat was bugged) but enlisted me to help with the electronics and software.

I think you are probably right. It might have been this one (haven't had a chance to listen again to check): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0054799

I assume you mean conscious observation of the results? Not necessarily. The extension of that logic is that the universe was in an indeterminate state until consciousness arose to observe it and collapse all the waveforms. It is hard to imagine how consciousness could arise in that case. The Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment was devised to show how silly this interpretation is. I don't know how an observer can choose which slit it goes through. Other than placing the source right in front of a single slit or blocking one slit. In which case you don't have a double-slit experiment. What you can do is (in various ways) detect which slit the photon went through. Which changes the results. There is no need for anyone (conscious or otherwise) to look at the which-slit measurement; just the act of doing it changes the result even if no one looks at it. Can I suggest that you don't post when stoned in future. Your posts have little enough value as it is. When you post incoherent drivel like this it cancels out any minimal value. If not posting when high means you never post again, then that is OK too.

There was a discussion on the radio a while ago about whether math is invented or discovered. One of the guests proposed the idea of an alien intelligence based on fluid forms rather than solid bodies - to them, the ideas related to real numbers and even calculus might be intuitively obvious but then one of their greatest minds comes up with the shocking and difficult-to-grasp concept of "integers" ...

People have said that ever since the creation of writing. And probably before. I imagine they will go on saying it for a great deal longer. How would you like it cooked?

This link: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/oberlin1206296667/inline Can't see anything strange about that.

Not with any technology we have now.

Only what mass changed that is involved in what? True. As already noted, the mass change in chemical reactions is (as far as I know) too small to measure. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. So how is it relevant? So what? So what? What does "energy flowing through medium" mean? The mass change would be measurable if the energy change were large enough so, again, so waht? What strange things? And how is it relevant? In summary, you have said nothing relevant to mass-energy equivalence, so what is your point?

OK. That appears to be the complete opposite of what you said before. Are you now saying that you think humans are unique in requiring a diverse diet? That does not appear to be true. Some human populations (e.g. hunter-gatherers) subsist on a very narrow range of foods, probably similar to the diets of their primate neighbours. Accounts of what? And how is it relevant to evolution? Those writings were created by modern humans.

What?

That is quite an impressive collection of non sequiturs in just two sentences. What does the Fermi paradox have to do with Bitcoin? What does SHA-2 calculation have to do with courting? Or even auditing? What is the connection between courting and auditing? What does courting (or auditing) have to do with whirlpools? What do whirlpools have to do with "reverse dark energy"? What is "reverse dark energy"? What does "reverse dark energy" have to do with the Fermi paradox? And so on.

Building regulations. Almost everywhere has them.

Why? Surely it would have to lose exactly the same amount of energy as any other method of getting the loads up to the same speed.

Note that it is not a limit on frequency, but on the frequency achievable for a given energy. So, use more energy and get a higher processing rate. Until some other limit applies ... We are nowhere near that sort of processing speed, however.

Not a subject I know much about but I did a quick search and it doesn't look as if contagion is a significant risk factor. I'm not sure why. Presumably they choose vectors which are not easily transmitted (or are modified to be less easily transmitted). For example, this review of the risks only has a passing mention of contagion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543871/

Do you mean this "Ultimate Unifying Theory"? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/101872-the-ultimate-unifying-theory/ How about discussing it instead of creating endless posts complaining about Microsoft Word (why are you so dependent on that anyway)?

The observer doesn't necessarily choose the slit. The observer can detect which slit the photon goes through and this destroys the interference pattern. And note that "observer" just means any measurement device. You cannot measure a photon going through both left and right and so you final question doesn't really make sense. This has nothing to do with consciousness.