Strange

So, presumably that would have lined up with a hole in the container that this stopper went into so it could act as a tab. Quite likely for gas, as studiot suggests. Beyond that, I have no idea what gas (or liquid) it would be for. It looks like quite a narrow hole, so it would be a limited flow. Although, as it was a plating line, it could have been for delivering controlled amounts of acids or other chemicals. Just did an image search for "ground glass tap" and didn't see anything quite like this.

I cannot extract that meaning from the sequence of posts. Let's put it in context: A: "There are two sides: people who think the world is round and those who think it is flat." B: "There are not two sides, there are those who know what the world is like and others who are ignorant or lying" Note that A does not claim to be on one side or the other. Note that B does not say anything about A's beliefs. Also, even if A now says "And I am in the second group" then factually they are either ignorant (or misinformed) or they know that the world is not flat and so they are lying. If they refuse to admit they are ignorant, that doesn't make them a liar, as you suggest. No. If he tells them climate change is wrong and the Earth is flat then he is only a liar if he does it knowing it is not true. If he is ignorant of the facts then he is not lying. No. They are lying unless they are just ignorant (even if they are unwilling to admit it). Or misinformed or wrong for some other reason.

Looking at the thread in question, it is very obviously not aimed at the other member. The OP started out saying there are two sides. The person you are quoting was responding to that by, quite correctly, pointing out that, as far as the science goes, there is only one side. Their characterisation of "the other side" could not have been aimed at the OP because they were still pretending to be "just asking questions." (And yes, this is "semantics"; which means the meanings of words.) It is not a general attitude about disagreement. It is about people who wilfully disregard scientific evidence and continue to repeat falsehoods even after being shown that they are false. I'm sure there is a word for people who do that...

! Moderator Note I have looked at the two threads you mentioned and about five others. I could not find one single example of anyone accusing someone else of being a "liar" or a "troll" (despite a couple of those threads being started by obvious trolls). So do not make such unsubstantiated and insulting accusations about the members of this forum again. Because, after all, it is against the rules.

It’s hard to tell, but it looks to me like the hole up the middle does a right angle to the right about halfway up the ground section. But if you say there is no hole, then I am stumped (Stump the Chump)

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help. Note that we cannot answer your questions for you, but we can help you on the way. So, for example, why do you think this might be the case?

For the UK, the figures are 54%, 21% and 24% (they don't quite add up to 100% - rounding errors, I think) which is better, but not hugely so. The goal is to get up to 30% renewable in 2020. More progress needs to be made on this. But building generating plants and infrastructure takes time and costs money. There is little incentive for power companies to replace, say, coal-fired power plants which cost little to run and a lot to replace. I found this statement: "Global installed capacity for solar-powered electricity has seen an exponential growth..." and thought that sounds good but then read on: "reaching 1% of all electricity used globally." Which doesn't sound anywhere near as impressive. From: https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/images/imported/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf

There was one negative vote, but it has gone now.

Well, they are either ignorant or one of the above. There aren't too many other possibilities. However, our rules do not allow people to accuse others of most of those things. There are science forums that are much stricter than this one. And others were you can say exactly what you think of other posters. This one is in the middle somewhere. ! Moderator Note I think we are done then. Everyone understands what they need to do if they think others have overstepped the mark.

! Moderator Note No. Please don't. I don't think we want to get into a discussion of individual posts or members, and whether what they said breaks the rules. We have people to look after that. Sometimes we see things that we then act on. Sometimes we rely on people reporting it. Sometimes people report things as a "personal attack" or an "insult" and we don't think it is any such thing, so we don't act on it. There are plenty of people who have been warned, suspended or banned (and, in rare cases, their posts hidden) for breaking the rules on civility. So, again, if anyone sees anything that they think breaches our rules (which are sometimes 'more what you'd call “guidelines” than actual rules') please report it.

My problem with this is that you are asking a random collection of people on the Internet for ways to solve this problem. There are some very bright people her. And there may even be some with some relevant expertise and experience. But that can't match the specialists who are already developing these sort of plans. It is too easy for non-specialists to come up with "obvious" solutions, that won't work in practice because they don't understand all the issues. The problem is not a lack of detailed plans. There are lots: from cities banning certain types of vehicles; planting more trees; countries with plans to ban all fossil-fuel cars; governments making better insulation on (new and existing) houses compulsory; replacing diesel and gasoline with biofuel; more energy being produced from renewable sources (several countries have experienced periods where all their power has been from renewable sources; these periods will get longer and more frequent until they join up); transitioning farming and food production to more sustainable products and techniques; and on and on. The bigger problem is political will, so it might be better to ask how you change that (e.g. don't re-elect Trump).

Other things to add: * Food supply and diet (a lot of this is about adapting to the change, rather than just trying to minimise it) * Clothing manufacture and fashion * Lifetime and re-use of products, generally * Recycling * Water supply will become a problem in many areas * Problems with agriculture, water, etc will force large populations to migrate, creating problems else where * Pests and diseases will increase their range - West Nile virus is now present in parts of southern Europe, I believe

I skimmed through the thread this was spun off from and didn't see anything particularly remarkable. However, we do try and maintain a good level of civil discourse. If you think we are failing in that goal, then please do your bit by reporting any posts that you feel fall below the necessary standards.

It does apply because your "flat torus" is, be definition, flat (which is why you can't make a physical one, just a virtual representation on a screen). But you have just made me realise that the "inner" (nearest the hole) surface of a "real" torus has negative curvature while the outer surface has positive curvature. So you could create triangles that meet all three of those conditions.

There is the problem that a lot of normal words imply that sort of conscious action, purely because we normally use them for human activity and extend them to inanimate objects by metaphor. And, I suppose, because we say things like "I took the shortest route home" it can imply some sort of choice. But, when it comes to any of the non-biological sciences, such conscious action is never implied.

In this case, "taken" means the path that the object ... uhm ... takes... I mean "follows" ... or goes along. We might calculate the path we expect an object to take, or we might measure the path an object takes (to check our calculation). But the object is not measuring it.

And do you have evidence of this? No, of course not. Because it is not true. It is something you made up for no reason at all.

! Moderator Note This is not a forum for ridiculous conspiracy theories. Take it elsewhere.

! Moderator Note If you know this, then you must have evidence. If so, post it in your next response.

I see no evidence they do. This seems to be an effect in Glycogen storage disease type I (von Gierke disease): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen_storage_disease_type_I#Elevated_Lactate_and_Lactic_Acidosis

! Moderator Note With no explanation of the symbols in your “equation” it is impossible to know what it means, never mind if it is correct. Do not start any more threads with your pretend mathematics (it is like a child scribbling random marks on paper and then insisting they are writing).

conjurer suspend for a week for persistently posting above his level of understanding

! Moderator Note This is nonsense. I think you need to take some off to consider whether this is the right place for you.

! Moderator Note You have already demonstrated very well that you don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t think you need to start a new thread to provide more evidence.

! Moderator Note This forum is not a place for you to advertise your web site. Also, do not hijack other people’s threads for the purpose.