J.C.MacSwell

...and maintaining it through the Dark Ages. +1 for that part.

Might be less symmetric than that but very good point.

High spatial ability based on what you said. I know nothing of Tetris. I expect that would mean you had a higher than average IQ, assuming all other traits were average, or average overall.

I think you are a little off track but it's hardly a silly argument...and I don't see anyone claiming it is/was. +1 for starting the thread and welcome to the Forum. That's like saying chimps are naturally inclined to promiscuity because they evolved from humans. Common ancestor=/= "we evolved from them".

No. Despite the fact that she is a representative of the Democratic Party, I've made it clear I don't believe "the whole of the Democratic Party" believes it. (reread my posts if you must) Therefore, I have no need to provide evidence that they do. That speculation as to where AOC got the idea the world would end was in the link I provided. Am I supposed to quote the whole article? I quoted the part I agreed with most particularly:With a topic as politically divisive as climate change, imprecise language and factually incorrect statements not only provide easy targets for the other side but also hinder conversations focused on building a consensus around real solutions." LOL. When's the last time you allowed a Republican that level of nonsense? Hyperbole is not science. It's disingenuous to imply I did, if that's your intent.

A CNN take: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/fact-check-trump-aoc-climate/index.html (bolded by me) "Both statements gave ammo to the other side. Environmentalists lambasted Trump while some journalists on the right mocked Ocasio-Cortez’s 12-year timeline. With a topic as politically divisive as climate change, imprecise language and factually incorrect statements not only provide easy targets for the other side but also hinder conversations focused on building a consensus around real solutions." Clearly I implied it wasn't. Why are you unable to see that? And why do you not hold yourself to the same standard on a claim you did make?

No. Why is it all or none? What is remotely scientific about that? I'm questioning your claim that the "whole of the Republican Party" is anti science. There is plenty of evidence of Democrats claiming the world will end in 12 (10 now?) years. Is the "whole of the Democrat Party" anti-science also? Anyone polarized in their politics are not scientific when getting to that point. They're biased. Some are extremely so, and they come from both the Right and the Left.

Thanks. You've been putting up with my twisted sense of humour longer than Joigus.

Calgary here in Canada (Calgary Zoo) Apologies for the off topic content. Please carry on.

Sorry about that. 😀 Here's a couple getting lunch between classes. ...and I'll see myself out...

I thought I would post this here:

I didn't even know they went to university...

I think I was giving him the benefit of the doubt as being perhaps honest but not very bright (at least in scientific matters). INow might have suspected the opposite? Really? Anecdotal evidence of one Republican's views doesn't do much for your claim.

I guess at least one of us is giving him more credit than he deserves... Not defending the mentality when 1 in 4 refuse the vaccine...that's an incredibly high number...but it's not the majority.

Sounds more like a Republican that has a poor understanding of science more so than one that is anti-science. Are they down to one member?

+1. I also believe we're born not knowing instinctively what race we might be. We remain "open minded' until our other instincts kick in, and the more multi-racial integrated our community the less likely we are to become racist...all other thinks being equal...which of course they never are.

Maybe if the Left acted as tribal and one-sided, the Right would learn their lesson and stop?

There was certainly a lot of grey areas, but tha risk assessment was less scientific than it should have been. Plenty was known about masks, and enough about the virus to know that N95+ masks should be more effective than lesser ones and lesser ones better than nothing, all other things being equal, including to the wearer. This was denied, or implied to be otherwise, due to a political agenda. That's not scientific, no matter how well intended or for what purpose. Same goes for climate change denial or claims our existence is threatened by climate change within 12 years. Neither is a reasonable scientific assessment, yet both are spouted by politicians claiming to be scientific, in ways no data (or common sense) supports.

...and then order the Enterprise to "Warp Speed"...😛 😄

Relative to the passenger, that can be done with simple acceleration. Never FTL at any time, but can effectively achieve it over a distance from the perspective of the passengers changing frame.

In practice they do, short of you claiming that's what it is, or it being obvious. They'll accept your money and give you a less than worthless patent. The nice thing about your patent will be that it will cost you very little to defend it. No one will successfully take advantage of it.

Sounds promising. I wonder if it would be made available prior to 2023, if it seems like it would work on humans, and/or for those likely to succumb otherwise?

On a bad day it seems more like 110%...😄

Unfortunately that's the 90% it seems...on a good day.

I give it a plus, though I also think Paul is obligated to scrutinize and question him, obvious politics notwithstanding.