John Cuthber

A circle (or sphere) is not, in general, the right shape to focus parallel light to a point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration

I know what it means. It means deduce or conclude. I don't think you know how to use the word. Now, please well us what you think the word "on" means in this context. Did you mean "from"? "Notice here we didn't need to infer on superimposed arguments." And then tell us what you think the phrase as a whole means. Basically what you have written is bad English. It's not the only bit either. Have you not noticed that several people are pointing out the inadequacy of your communications?

I think you just proved my point. You actually think this is meaningful. What do you claim that "infer on" means?

The problem with this thread is not physics. The problem is that you seem to think that sentences like this are meaningful.

That's begging the question. The other person may well consider God to be a fact.

Yes it does. And it's the same definition of "God" for both definitions of atheist. If you don't say what God is, how do you know if he's on the list or not? He might be there, but labelled as Allah.

No The conclusion is "it depends what you mean by atheist". There are two perfectly plausible definitions, and they give different outcomes.

Is there a difference between these two definitions? "an atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists" and "An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist" Ordinarily the statements are considered equivalent. But, by one definition a rock is an atheist. A rock doesn't believe anything, so it doesn't believe in God. A person who has never been told about God is in the same position as that rock. You can't believe in something that you don't know about. By that definition, they are an a atheist. But, by the other definition, a rock can't believe that God does not exist. The rock is not an atheist. A person who has never heard about God is, again, in the same position as that rock; they hold no opinion about the nonexistence of God and is therefore not an atheist. The OP's question talks about nature or nurture. Being told that God exists (or that some people think He exists) is part of nurture. By the first definition, if you do not receive that nurture you are an atheist. By the second definition, if you do not receive that nurture you are not an atheist. So the answer to the question depends very strongly on how you define atheism.

Tensile strength of steel is about 600 MPa. Pure annealed aluminium is about 40 MPa Lead is about 17 MPa. Bamboo is in the range 50 to 150. This is a robot you could destroy with a wooden sword. And what they have developed is a robot that would turn into a puddle of molten metal when heated in an induction furnace. That's exactly the same as any other metal robot. Headline should say "Researchers develop world's least scary robot".

I'm not sue r the question is well defined. Imagine growing up with nobody ever mentioning God. Until someone tells you that (they think) God exists or that He does not exist , you can't hold the position of not believing in that God. Equally, you can not say that you do believe in Him. It's like asking if you believe in a fungus that makes ants go mad. Until you heard of the idea of such a fungus, you can't say that you do, or that you do not, believe in it. Can you tell me if you believe in GRUGFLUNT?

If you like. But rewriting thermodynamics as cryodynamics doesn't really achieve much. People have given some thought to it. https://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/07/short-summary-of-a-new-idea-cryodynamics

Actually from the measurement of the earth- a vital thing to do it the Nile kept washing away your markers.

Actually it was about "come and see our new movie. Thank you for illustrating my point about how it will be misinterpreted without that context. Name calling ... srsly? I expected better Hatred of what exactly? Have you leapt to the stupid conclusion that I'm racist? It might be an idea to take the bad, unfunny video and the comments it provoked into another thread. (And if someone was to delete that thread, it wouldn't be the end of the world)

Just a thought. If I really wanted to make black people look stupid, I'd post that video clip without mentioning that it's fake. I'd let people think that it illustrates a real incident where a group of people did something monumentally stupid. (Rather than it being an advert for a film.) 83,048,009 views 6 Jul 2011 In theaters now! Purchase tickets online @ http://www.fandango.com/riseoftheplan... ---------------- http://www.facebook.com/apeswillrise - For the latest 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' news & updates ------ http://itun.es/igb4Ky - --- Soldiers give monkey a loaded gun From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU In broad terms, do you think that video clip is more likely to be quoted out of context by racists or non racists? Which group do you want to be seen as part of? In broad terms, does the video that purportedly shows a group of black guys being really really stupid (without making it clear that they are paid actors) play in favour of, or against, racism? So, OK I apologise. I was too subtle in pointing out that (without context) the video is "too wrong to be funny". That video is deeply offensive. I really think that the best thing to do is either clarify that the video is deliberately fake or take it down. (Not everyone will realise that a chimp wouldn't be able to handle the recoil of a real gun; nor would they calmly ignore the noise it made) I also apologise for not realising the full extent to which people would be offended by the way I did that. OK I really am sorry about that. I'm also sorry for any offence I caused.

Just as well nobody did it here then.

Sorry; I thought this was a science site. We spend enough time explaining to the God-Squad that people are apes that I thought it was acceptable. OK, I stand by my observation, but have clarified it.

What slur? Are you saying the individuals with guns are not people or are you saying that people are not apes? If it's the second you are factually incorrect. If it's the first then ... I'm not the problem round here.

Would whoever marked that down like to explain why? In particular, do they realise that people are apes?

That video shows at least 4 apes with guns. Just to clarify things. Guns were invented by apes and are almost exclusively used by apes. I'm more worried about people who refuse to believe that people are apes than I am about a chimp with an AK.

No. Cavity wall insulation and polystyrene sheet internal insulation show that you are wrong. What you see on the outside is often brick. And bricks are lousy insulation. They are structural, not thermal. Some of their buildings are https://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mauna-Kea/forecasts/4205 But that doesn't matter much. Then why did you introduce it? Do you really think that those who live in well insulated houses don't want to pay smaller bills? The current issue with UK energy bills isn't insulation. It's profiteering (aided by a corrupt government). That's probably a bit beside the point.. None. They died because some bastard wanted to save money and broke the law to do it. We have known for decades that you use fibreglass if you are worried about fire. If you go back a bit before that we used asbestos lagging. My 19th century house now has about 15 cm of fire retardant polyurethane foam in the roof. What evidence do you have?

No. In the UK -10 is equivalent to -10. That's the point of having a standardised scale.

That's a little like assuming that people have no internal organs because all you see is skin.

They usually use PTFE.

BDDE isn't going to be very stable- because of the two epoxy groups. It's likely to forma a mess of different product when heated. But "stable" is a difficult thing to define. Stable for how long?

Seems an odd place to start. What are you trying to achieve?