Leaderboard

But words “are” not more words. What they are is labels for objects, actions, ideas etc. that allow us to share our experience and thought with others. While all, or almost all, words are serious, certain combinations of them can be silly.

Very interesting. Here's a cute YT video on the 'mechanical' version of it, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox#Springs) Sorry that it's a bit off-topic.

Are you trying to win a bet with someone that you can be even more ridiculous and even more profoundly absurd than you already were in previous posts?

You need to read it. Figure 5, in particular, which has the information you claim isn’t in the paper. And, while Im here, I will point out that the graph you posted with the arrows is another example of bad faith arguing. You compare a rise where you have cherry-picked the endpoints(as has been noted), starting with a minimum and ending on a maximum. and comparing it to a rise where you didn’t. Had you not cherry-picked the data, you would have two distinctly different slopes. That makes for a different argument I know this because you’re not the first to make this kind of BS argument. The early 1900s had volcanic activity and increased sulfate levels, which cooled the planet.

Re-read the thread. We are trying to determine how/if to allow transgender athletes to compete. Everyone else is discussing whether or not testosterone levels are meaningful, or even safe to use. They are trying to decide if muscle mass can be measured, or if different sports would require different rules. You do not get to decide above all other opinions what constitutes a woman, and who should be allowed in the 'women's' category due to your definition. You don't get to end this debate because YOU decided what a woman is NOT.

Charlie Daniels weighs in on yesterday's news...

You are confusing the labels with the entities that the words represent. If you carry on doing that it will be pointless trying to converse with you.

It tells you that an estimate has been made. It tells you what that estimate is. It tells you about the statistical power of that estimate. If the word "combination" makes an assertion meaningless, then why did you say this? Once you make it that clear that you can not even follow your own argument, it's probably time to stop, isn't it?

Can't be true. There are only several thousand hairs in a man's beard.

Grimm J & Grimm W : Rapunzel .

Here is a paradoxical aspect of adding, and removing, roads: Braess's paradox - Wikipedia

I think that's a very limited perspective. The gridlock is not due to an insufficiency of roads, but to heavy reliance on personal vehicles. However roads are built, more cars make more trips and spew out more CO2. That's inefficient, unintelligent use of the roads. If you built more roads, they'd fill up in a few years, blocking migration routes, cutting habitats in half, killing wildlife and endangering one another. Why is there even a "rush hour" in every city? Where on Moses' tablets does it say everyone has to live on the outskirts of a city and work in the center from 9 to 5 every weekday? Why are cities so badly designed and organized? It's an erroneous one. The general idea for autonomous cars, atm, is to provide cheap taxi service. At least that's the plan in China. That, of course, would reduce the number of cars downtown. They'd still have to spend a lot of money on something that sits idle most of the time. Having robotaxis on call would be way more convenient: you'd still get to surf the net, without the hassle of looking a parking space at the end each little trip. The robotaxis themselves would be on the road most of the time, doing the work of a hundred private vehicles. Anyway, it's all speculative. What will be will be. You sure can build a mountain!

Because you’re not worth the time And there’s the sense of bad faith included with several of your posts.

There were certainly no gulags then and the entire "dissemination" of the "Moral Code" was publishing it in Pravda and including it in several lessons in schools. It was quickly ignored in the years after that. No repressions related to it ever occurred. No violence was there in connection with it or its dissemination. Yes, I don't like your cartoon picture of humans. And I am free to express my dislike here, as long as I don't violate the forum rules. What I suggested to drop earlier was specifically the conversation about MY experiences. Not generally about your proposal.

Don't tell me, the road PQ goes over a bridge, at a place called Wheatstone. 😀

That may be a factor, and even if it is the most abundant greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere, there are still solutions to the problem. Many scientists don't even know how to even go about approaching such an issue. You have to start with your knowledge base and then begin to apply it to real world problems in realtime. Physics will be the answer, or solution whatever you may call it to climate change. It depends on who can apply the most advanced technology available (me) to any issue related to the climate. If there's a problem there's a solution, that's just how life is. Its like stropping your straight razor morning right? because everyone does that. Every action has an equal to or opposite reaction.

Citation? I was always under the impression that stress caused slower growth of all types of hair due to increased corticosterone levels hindering that growth.

Are you suggesting the only way to spread a philosophy is through violence? It may be a quick method of doing so (at least superficially), but it certainly isn't the best way of going about things. Socrates, to the best of my knowledge, never needed to use weapons to disseminate his thoughts (which isn't to say his fellow Greeks were non-violent). Ghandi played an integral role in Indian independence from an Empire that was at best indifferent to the suffering of his people, all without taking up arms. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man influential enough to have a federal holiday observed in his honor, was also a man of peace.

You need to read it again.

Concrete mathematics was created by smoked brain. We cannot apply it anywhere.

So you're suggesting the Soviet Union was a free society when the "Moral Code" was published and in the years following? No repression of the populace that you can think of? It is connected to the violence by the society that disseminated it. The "Moral Code" isn't 100% evil in and of itself. That said, my principles demand no loyalty unto themselves. You can opt to follow them or not, and if you find they work for you, so much the better. Further, my principles in no way promote intolerance against things like careerism, acquisitiveness, or the enemies of my little philosophy. You don't like it? Ignore it, which I thought you were going to given this snippet.

My definition is observing therefore the formula of scientists is disinformation.

I know all words are more words, and therefore, all words are silly. Do you know this? If you don’t, then you believe all words are more than words, and therefore, all words are serious. To believe that, you must say that. When you say that, do you know you prove this? If you don’t, then you don’t know this. When will you know this?

“Yes” and “absolutely” = more words Easy: all words are more words

Who said that? Rubbish, it doesn't tell you that. It tells you that somebody estimated that. And what does it tell you about it? A combination of . . . . blah blah . A combination can be any combination. For example, the air you breath is a combination of nitrogen, oxygen, Argon, water vapour and trace gases. CO2 is part of that combination, a trace gas at 0.04 percent. That illustrates why using the word "combination" adds nothing at all. It's word salad, just there to give an impression, to make an unsupported point.

Don't you know? That explains a lot. First words of the article : Sex - Wikipedia