Area54

I wonder if discussions like these, amongst educated Roman citizens, took place during the Decline, or were not commonplace until the Fall. Or have my mild bipolar tendencies just moved into the depressive phase?

I realise this discussion of fission in stars is off-topic, but it is considerably more interesting than the OP and is, in contrast to that, actually science. I just wanted to nit-pick your wording. You say there "could be trace amounts of heavy elements". That should read "there must be trace amounts of heavy elements". If there were not then all our theories of stellar formation could be tossed onto a bonfire. The sun and planets are understood to have formed from the gravitational collapse of a portion of a molecular cloud. There is no known (or even postulated) mechanism that could have excluded the heavy elements (many of which went on to form planets, asteroids, moons, meteorites, etc,) from the sun. They must be there. (And spectral analysis confirms their presence.)

Unfotunately not. My primary source for news is the BBC, both broadcast and online. The suggestion that the vaccine might give longer protection than infection with the virus was made on a few occassions by experts, and/or informed reporters. I just filed the comments in my mind as something to keep an eye on as more data became available. There was no concrete mention of a mechanism.

My apologies. I attributed your post to the OP. I can't even plead lack of sleep as an excuse.

No one knows. This will only emerge as those who have been vaccinated, either in the trials or in vaccination programs, begin to succumb to covid in the future. I have yet to see a genuine expert, in any country, offer a speculation - only various hopes. If I have properly understood some of the reports I've seen then this is definitely a possibility and is actively hoped for. At the risk of giving offence I wouldn't call it controversial, just silly.

You appear to be conflating leftists with atheists. Perhaps you've lived in America for too long. There are many Christian leftists. I learned the principles of socialism from sermons and Sunday School. So, I've either misunderstood your position, or your views don't reflect reality.

So, you accept that the other criticisms of MigL were valid then? It seems so, since you have chosen the most minor item on his list to challenge. (A challenge that was, indeed, nit-picking.)

My suspicion is that after some nine months of covid avoidance measures a significant proportion of the population will feel that the mere existence of a vaccine somehow means it's OK to relax. It won't register that it will be well through next year before the majority of people have received a vaccine. As a consequence I fear that we could see third and fourth waves occurring. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think humans have got a good track record for long term, sustained, widespread rational behaviour. On the plus side, ignoring Covid completely, we now know the names of 18 astronauts destined to travel to the moon. That's something nice to think about.

The UK one is reported here on the BBC's children's channel/site. It was produced by a local man who was amused by the Utah one. Plus this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-55227034 and on Glastonbury Tor: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-55248257

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics (Vintage 1942 ) was really about how to constrain Artificial Intelligence rather than robots. If something equivalent is imposed on all future AI's there is little to worry about. If not, then be afraid. Be very afraid.

No argument about the importance of accuracy is pointless in a science context. Your thread has provided a timely reminder of this. Timely, that is, for you. The rest of us are, I think, already aware of the point.

Speaking personally, it just means I'm an idiot.

This is central to evolutionary theory. You will likely have heard the somewhat trite summary of natural selection as "survival of the fittest". The fittest are those having the genes that, on average, best equip them to survive the hazards of their environment. Consult any relevant textbook for details. Without stresses placed on organisms by hazards their could be no meaningful selection.

Sometimes people with high IQs are just better at rationalising their bad decisions. Sometimes people with high IQs use them to con people with low IQs. (I leave it as an exercise for the student to think of any noteworthy examples.) Sometimes people with high IQs are smart enough to avoid politics. Sometimes people with high IQs are too busy making posts on science forums.

I think it is worth noting that until Darwin and Wallace came along natural selection was not a "blatantly obvious undeniable fact". Thomas Huxley,"Darwin's bulldog", a considerable thinker himself, remarked (and I paraphrase this, to save searching for the precise wording) "How silly, I should have thought of that." On the subject of giraffe necks, I read some research four or five years ago arguing that the long necks were not related to advantages associated with reaching higher foliage. I may be misrembering, but I think the researchers had determined that a) giraffes don't favour the higher foliage, (b) longer necked specimens do not appear to enjoy a reproductive advantage. While searching for a link to the research I found this one: E.M.Williams "Giraffe Stature and Neck Elongation: Vigilance as an Evolutionary Mechanism" Biology 2016, 5(3), 35 Here is the abstract Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), with their long neck and legs, are unique amongst mammals. How these features evolved is a matter of conjecture. The two leading ideas are the high browse and the sexual-selection hypotheses. While both explain many of the characteristics and the behaviour of giraffe, neither is fully supported by the available evidence. The extended viewing horizon afforded by increased height and a need to maintain horizon vigilance, as a mechanism favouring the evolution of increased height is reviewed. In giraffe, vigilance of predators whilst feeding and drinking are important survival factors, as is the ability to interact with immediate herd members, young and male suitors. The evidence regarding giraffe vigilance behaviour is sparse and suggests that over-vigilance has a negative cost, serving as a distraction to feeding. In woodland savannah, increased height allows giraffe to see further, allowing each giraffe to increase the distance between its neighbours while browsing. Increased height allows the giraffe to see the early approach of predators, as well as bull males. It is postulated that the wider panorama afforded by an increase in height and longer neck has improved survival via allowing giraffe to browse safely over wider areas, decreasing competition within groups and with other herbivores

In case you still haven't got it, your question was a damn silly question, it was meaningless, it was an affront to logic and common sense. If you still cannot see that I recommend you study for a bachelors degree in philosophy and the history of science. You can report back here when you graduate and apologise.

I've long taken personal exception to the under-representation of old, bald, white men, with questionable bladder control amongst Olympic athletes.

I think I'd rather educate discriminating individuals not to discriminate. I don't insist that this is easy, or even possible in each instance, but the same may be said of justice. On the whole I'd prefer the former (education) and nothing says we can't strive for both.

This example is not one of wisdom, but did give me great hopes that my son had developed the same warped sense of humour. At a dinner to celebrate his 11th birthday I was pontificating about the supposed origin of the name America from that of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci. Quick as a flash my son said, "That's quite something. Having a continent and a fairground a attraction named after you." I looked at him, puzzled? "A fairground attraction?" "Yes," he replied "A merry-go-round."

Probably, but gravity seems to be constrained in his brain - the penny drops slowly. I agree with the entitled impression, though in my mind I just think of her as a politically incorrect five letter word: if there is an ounce of compassion in her it is well concealed. Still, while we are almost as messed up as the US, it's less important.

Do you see parallels with the UK situation where Boris Johnson has refused to fire Priti Patel, Home Secretary, following the report finding she was in breach of Ministerial behaviour via multiple instances of bullying? The Code of Ministerial Behaviour lays out the standards and Sir Alex Allan, heading the enquiry, held that they had been breached. He then resigned in protest at the rejection of the findings by Johnson. While the Code is not legally binding the norm has been to resign if foundin breach of it. This incident is, in my view, a dangerous precedent, akin to his refusal to ditch Cummings after he blatantly flouted Covid restrictions.

Water evaporates. Water molecules drift through the air. Flies detect water molecules and move up the concentration gradient.

To my psychiatrist. I paid him good money to stop these delusions.

I've given your post a +1, since this comment is the most positive content I have seen in your threads. You acknowledge that you need to improve and you ask for help to do so. Excellent. Now the onus is on me (and hopefully others) to give you specific guidance. Where to begin? Here are some things you could try: Make no assumptions about the extent of other people's knowledge Provide details, but make sure you organise those details. Don't throw them down as they occur to you, but think about the best way to present them. Use short sentences, Avoid complicated English. Example: you said "How is it I should improve to more efficiently articulate myself." Firstly, "improve" and "more efficiently articulate" are the same. You don't need both and including both makes the sentence more difficult to understand. Secondly, "more effciently articulate" is flowery. Why not say, "How can I write more clearly? Edit. Then edit again. Wait fifteen minutes. Edit again. If you wish I can comment on future posts. This can be by pm, if you prefer.

That is not evident. The OP is word salad. I imagine you have an idea, important to you and possibly of general interest, but until you improve your ability to communicate that idea we shall be running in circles. You can continue to reject that, thinking that you are writing clearly and umabiguously, but that leads nowhere. Such of those posts I have seen seem to suffer from the same problem. Until your posts combine clarity, relevance and purpose I shall merely point this out to you in the hope you can improve. Only then will I know if I have something on topic to contribute. In the meantime Zapatos makes a good suggestion.