John Cuthber

You do realise that most of the people here telling you that you are wrong work for a living, don't you?

How many are in jail as a result of this tolerance and non-intervention? The big problem is not drugs, nor addiction. The big problem is that drug use is illegal. Where? If there's somewhere you reside, it's your home. Homeless people do not have a residence. Did you think this topic through before you posted?

It explains why telling me about Sheldrakes nonsense is a waste of your time and mine. I thought I already had. There may be more than one reason for that.

Did it occur to you that I might be able to give a competent talk on the determination of G? Are you aware that physics and psychology are not the same thing and that Sheldrake might claim some expertise, but only in one of those areas? I know what confirmation bias is. It's trawling through google results until you find a video where someone says what you want to hear, and posting it as evidence- even though the video is by a discredited scientist working in a totally different field.

That goes both ways and you should think about the fact that you are outnumbered by actual scientists here. You should also have had a look at his methods. He measured the change in position with a telescope. So he wasn't walking across the room. That's because he was clever enough to think about these things. It's a little beside the point. There have been plenty of measurements since his day. Would that be this guy? Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author and parapsychology researcher. He proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been criticized as pseudoscience.

I'm going to steal that.

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.