swansont

They have to share features if you look at things coarsely enough. Wings provide lift, and have to follow the laws of aerodynamics. That often constrains the form that provides the function. IOW, everything is made of atoms, so pointing to that commonality would be meaningless.

Possible futures can be fueled by imagination, and not limited by what we’ve observed. Lasers were not something found in nature. The first nuclear reactor was not, even though we later found examples of that happening.

<sigh> Your evidence? Is there any way to document and/or quantify this? I suspect that if you reviewed the appropriate literature you would see new ideas popping up, all over the place. What you won’t see is this happening on a large scale, but if current paradigms are correct, that’s exactly what you’d expect. But at a lower level, you would, in areas that were not accessible in years past. When I started grad school, laser cooling and trapping was a pretty new subfield of atomic physics, made possible by advances in laser technology. As more was learned it blossomed into a huge area of research, and branched out as people thought of new applications. So I reject the notion because I spent my career experiencing it. If current paradigms are not correct, you’d expect more and more examples where the science fails. If your premise is correct, nobody would be stepping up to come up with models to explain what’s going on. Finding examples of this should be easy - there should be a whole bunch of unexplained phenomena, with nobody studying those issues. Things that science is based on are assumed to be true, since you’re not going to reinvent the wheel every time you start a new project. Science isn’t seeking any objective truth. We seek models to predict how nature behaves. There’s a bunch of stuff in physics that we know aren’t real (i.e. we make them up) — they are useful tools for such predictions.

Do we have wings that are shaped like a bird’s? Or submersibles shaped like a fish? They might be out there, but airplane wings are not like a bird’s and submarines are not shaped like a fish. That’s terminology, not design. I’ve never heard anyone describe it as swimming. Certainly not like a fish. And again, that’s terminology. Not like brains. You seem to be appealing to analogues, which (again) is terminology. It’s not duplication of design

The situation on the left won’t work, since the water is going higher - you need to do work. It could work if there was sufficient flow, and you converted KE into PE. They mention this early on; it’s what happens in a ram pump. The situation on the right is a siphon, with a reservoir in the middle. Water ends up at a lower PE, so there’s no need for work to be done.

I would hope that they, too, would urge you to look at the literature I expect that this has been studied, and you could find things out if you actually looked for answers. Yeah, that’s not it.

! Moderator Note That wasn’t the issue that was presented. The question asked is “can I find out when a drive was last connected or accessed?” It’s not unreasonable to request that you stick to the topic

! Moderator Note How about we have answers addressing the question, about buying a wig, and not trying to change the topic.

If it’s not bias, what result would show bias, and why? I’m failing to see how belief in a supreme being could be associated with bias.

I wonder if his sentence will prohibit associating with other felons. That would really cut down on options; so many of his former staff have been convicted.

! Moderator Note Not a speck of astronomy or cosmology here

How is this bias?

This is about philosophy and philosophers, not science and scientists.

“When you middle-click on a Web link (or hold down Ctrl while clicking with the left mouse button), the page will be opened in a new tab.” https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tab-preferences-and-settings#:~:text=When you open a link,opened in a new tab. There’s apparently a setting, but that can be overridden by the web page

I look forward to your demonstration of this. What if there are competing views, but one wins because of demonstrated flaws in the competitors, or that the adopted view just works better?

What is B?

The upsetting thing is that you are making claims without substantiating them. Such as “Why this prevalent homogeneity of views in science?” and “why has entire fields of scientific investigation been relinquished to the fringes of science?” Both questions assume an underlying premise that you have not shown to be true.

Rather than just posting such guesswork, one could search for actual scientific studies on the topic. We’re a science discussion site; it’s what we expect.

I think so. Most are. There would likely be a down-ballot effect if he’s not on the ballot; some republicans wouldn’t show up to vote, and thus not vote for state or local candidates. I imagine this would be appealed and SCOTUS might rule that it can’t apply to federal elections. Unlike their foot-dragging with the immunity issue, the’d probably act quickly.

Genetic does not necessarily mean inherited - mutations happen Inherited genetics can be recessive traits. There could be multiple alleles, and it could be that it’s not just one gene responsible. edit: xpost with CharonY This is an internet forum; it’s international. You might be posting from the US but others are not. As far as the first amendment is concerned, SFN is not an arm of the US government, so it does not apply. You need to follow the rules. It would behoove you to understand why

Washington state has a law about felons running for office https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/plot-twist-for-trump-wa-has-a-law-against-felons-running-for-office/

Not just TFG. We’ve seen it over and over again: politicians who aren’t “for” something (or are actively against it) until they personally experience a situation that brings the idea into focus. They lack the empathy and broadness of mind to conceive of motivations that are not ingrained in them already. Trump has just distilled it to a somewhat purer form and in a more visible way.

Line from Ken White, aka popehat “Susan Collins said it was outrageous that Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts since he clearly learned his lesson after the first one.”

! Moderator Note “I will explain why in my opinion” That’s a big NOPE, (this is not about opinion) along with our rule about not posting videos by themselves I think we’ve had enough here.

It’s not about honest belief. If the juror knew he was guilty but voted not guilty because they placed loyalty to Trump above their sworn duty as a juror, and dealing with any blowback. (Much like the modern GOP, placing duty to party above duty to country) Cruz is tacitly admitting that Trump is guilty (if that statement is accurate)