J.C.MacSwell

The one I bolded when quoting CY. It's in all our job descriptions...at least those in democracies. Many, many, and many...Both sides have presented it this way.

Which is how it should be...so why don't you find some reasonable law makers? The vast, vast majority of Americans agree with the objections to the extremes of both sides, including: 1. No abortions under any circumstances and 2. Abortions by choice under any circumstances I think that law might point to why each of the Parties should sew their shirt together, rather than hope the other Party can be made to look worse...assuming they have any actual interest in improving outcomes and maintaining anything worthwhile they have in place.

What law allows someone to abort a tumour?

I guess as long as you don't call it an abortion it's okay... The Parties sure like their extreme positions. How about "I can't really define abortion but I know it when I hear about it".

My only assumption was that any State law that differed would have to be an unreasonable one. I'm certainly not naive enough to assume all State (or other) laws are reasonable.

What makes you think I would?

I would say Putin for starting it all, but I guess one could always say society is to blame...Russian society. Anything else you might like to ask?

How could any reasonable State law differ with that?

That was of course a rhetorical question.

Maybe they could suggest a part of Germany they could offer Putin?

I've worked in areas requiring tyvek suits in humid conditions. Hot enough to get myself to blow air up one leg of the suit using a vacuum in reverse.. Unbelievable cooling effect (though I've been generally drenched in sweat inside the suit before doing it). Looked like the michelin man as the suit expanded. I've also used positive pressure breathing apparatus powered by a battery strapped to my waist which gave a cooling effect as well, albeit just in the head area. I haven't done it but thought some combination of the two would work to good effect and be practical. Some sweating may still apply.

Better to name your kid Lee Harvey Booth?

Hopefully soon all the Ferdinand's remove Vladimir from lists of possible baby names as well...

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/asia/2022/07/08/attack-on-former-japan-pm-stuns-nation-known-for-gun-control.html Japan’s tight gun laws add to shock over Abe’s assassination "Abe’s security team may face serious questions. But because such attacks are extraordinary in Japan, relatively light security is the norm, even for former prime ministers."

Water has excellent heat capacitance, and it's cheap, so it's kind of a shame you can't use a preheat tank at low to usable temperatures for hot water. What you can do is have water storage tanks kept in a closed system that can be used for winter heating and/or summer cooling with a heat pump, especially if saved for times where the temperature differential makes heat pumps inefficient. Of course, the water may be cheap but the system and storage may not be. Not sure if it was here on this site, but I seem to recall discussing a small community version of this being potentially efficient and easier to insulate (cube square rule) where much of the insulation can then be the ground itself as long as there were no underground water flows near the reservoir to steal the heat. More or less an augmented geothermal system.

Rocks were much newer back then. A new ton could readily be moved with 102 gram force.

Surely that could have lead to a similar virus, if true, but would that be said to be covid-19?

Then why do they pass around that plate every Sunday?

The author has a point. I don't understand why evolutionists can claim it can all be done in the way they describe in just 6,000 years. If evolution is true you'd think it would have taken much longer. (Just kidding Truri...I will see myself out)

That of course was wishful thinking. I think Peterkin is right on the money on this part of this post: +1

Here's the assertion we've taken issue with. Can you now understand why it does not follow that "500 kg of mercury (a little less than 100L) will not float anything over 500 kg"?

That's the starting h. h raises until 1. the pole bottoms out, as you seem to realize.... OR 2. if the container is barely larger than your pole h raises enough to provide adequate pressure to float the cylinder. Not sure why you think that in 2. it would always require a mass of fluid greater or equal to the mass of the cylinder to allow the pole to float. Maybe if you used a less extreme example you could more readily see it I tried that here:

Exactly. As per my first post: I'm sure I could have stated it better, but I really thought that would be sufficient for most here.

Your claim was that you needed at least as much as the mass of the object. My bad for assuming you would immediately recognize that was not the case , after a brief thought. Apologies if I made you pull out a block of wood, stick it in a container, and add a bit of water to no avail. We're supposed to stand on the shoulders of giants to get further...not to drown them in the tub.