John Cuthber

It's not a theory in the scientific sense. On a good day, and with a following wind, it might just count as an hypothesis.

Since, even though I have explained why it's so important, you won't tell us what your approach t is, I presume that it's even more embarrassing than what I suggested. Incidentally, how did you rule out tidal effects?

Well, since the OP refuses to say how he got the data, I'm going to guess. I imaging he got the data from someone like the BGS for the dates of the earthquakes. http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/ then he looked at the newspapers for two weeks each side of the tremor for some sort of angry group. When he found one he labelled it as a riot. Then he did his analysis and found that every riot was within two weeks or a quake. Just like the Texas sharpshooter. Or maybe he didn't do that, but at least he now realises why he should have told us how he found the riots, and why "J'ai cherché " is the antithesis of science.

Yes. Now can you answer the question? How did you find your riots?

I take it from your repeated refusal to explain your protocol that you know it is flawed and that you are trolling. You have, practically speaking announced that you are either incompetent or dishonest and there is nothing more to say. Unless, of course, you would like another go...

"The Oxford Dictionary definition in this context is ' a disturbance of the peace by a crowd; an occurence of public disorder '." And thereby includes a Christmas carol concert as a riot. I am now asking for a third time, how did you find your riots? Also- there's no way to avoid politics in the issue of rioting.

It's the other part of my question that's more important. How did you find them? If you are doing this sort of research it's all too easy to fall into the Texas sharp shooter trap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy There's also a concern that some of them are clearly driven by external events- the miners' strike protests were carefully coordinated (by the police or the miners depending on whom you believe but they were not "spontaneous"). Some of the events are "copycat" riots (anything Handsworth can do, Nottingham can do better). that amounts to "double counting" of one event. The London protests about the G20 summit were not a riot. It's my understanding that so called "football violence" which has little to do with the game is often stage managed in advance by groups who enjoy that sort of thing. Anti-capitalist events on May day are more likely to be influenced by the date than the earthquakes. So- how do you define a riot? Incidentally, a rough tally (I only looked at years in office, rather than month- feel free to do it properly) says that 52 of the events took place under a Tory government as opposed to 17 under New Labour. The terms in office were about 17 and 13 years for the two parties respectively. The Tories had about 57% of the time in office, but 75% of the riots/ events. To me that looks like a rather stronger (and more plausible) effect than seismology (Unless Vulcan hates Tories).

A riot in the UK twice a year seems rather unlikely. Wiki only seems to have found rather fewer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots#1980s What mechanism are you using to find these "riots"?

Mr Trump makes it just too easy to show how daft the Republicans are. In his latest outburst he confirms that he wants to torture people for political gain. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/06/donald-trump-waterboarding-debate/79951320/ It's long been known that torture isn't a valid way to get information https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/ but that doesn't stop him. So, since the torture isn't to stop terrorism or crime, it can only be to boost his poll ratings.

Once again, they are beyond parody. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ericrosswood/your_child_may_be_forced_to_show_their_genitals_in_school_if_this_law_is_passed

Meh! anyway. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-campaign-misstatements-donald-trump/

Not if it's obvious. Successful lying may well be a sign of intelligence.

There is some professional opinion which says that at least one of them has. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/22/top-u-s-psychiatrists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder-textbook-case/ I can't see anything that singles him out as markedly different from the other senior figures in the party. Can anyone else?

And now for something completely different: the Republicans party losing it's collective mind- live on TV. https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153449869891130/

If you can actually do this "I would measure the human voice level of 20'000 men. " then the problem goes away. Just look at the genome of the highest pitched 5% and the lowest pitched 5% Those men will be the unusually low and unusually high ones whatever frequency "normal" might be. ​There are still problems with measuring a single frequency for speech- you would need to take some sort of average. Also, the physics suggests that bigger men will have lower voices. If you don't allow for that, you may find genes for height, rather than anything specifically to do with voices.

I wonder where you get a function like y=tan(exp(ax^2+bx+c)).

The goal post just moved again. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/08/kansas-governor-threatens_n_7539830.html

Specifically, the microbes that survive in sulphuric acid at a few hundred centigrade. Ironically, if I was looking for bugs that survive in those conditions, one place I might look is err, Venus.

Why do you think it's a tardis?

To be fair, he started the thread so he does have a say in what it is about.

Anyone who thinks that there are really left wing politicians in office in the US is, if not insane, not well informed.

Is that a serious question? It's the blog of the guy who draws this internationally syndicated cartoon http://dilbert.com/ and he's awell known social commentator.

Then my source, who is a "famous name" trumps his. But that's hardly the point; the issue is that he refuses to discuss it because he thinks I haven't read his pet theory on the subject.

The two works seem broadly in agreement. "! at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: Fear and aggression Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity Uncertainty avoidance Need for cognitive closure Terror management" and "Republican have it easier here too. Regarding the Middle East, for example, all they have to do is ask themselves two questions: 1. What does Israel want us to do? 2. Do we have any bombs left?" "Consider economics. If you are a Democrat, you have to balance all sorts of complicated economic theories in your head. That stuff is hard to understand and almost always wrong anyway. But if you are a Republican, all you need to know is that cutting taxes will make us all rich. " "Democrats are always worried about issues of fairness and equal opportunity. For example, workplace gender issues are a huge deal for Democrats. But if you are Republican there is no problem there to fix, except for all the whining. And you can learn to ignore that too." They look fairly similar to me.

Feel free to actually answer the question, rather than calling it pathetic.