John Cuthber

The impact of a nuke depends not so much on how much plutonium you put in, but how much of it undergoes fission and thus releases energy. The only way it will explode is if it's all in close proximity to the other bits. Once it gets blown apart the reaction stops. So, one nuke going off next to a bunch of others wouldn't set them off- it would just make a mess. Questionposter, at 100,000,000 degrees (give or take a few zeros) you don't have to design something to evaporate: you don't have any choice in the matter. The casing is designed to be heavy (and also to back-scatter neutrons). If you had an enormously strong casing, it would increase the yield. In reality, you can't. In fiction you can, and nobody minds.

Questionposter. The issue of "Why not just detonate all of it at the same time without the casing? " is easier said than done. Nukes need very good timing mechanisms already. If one were late by a few tens of nanoseconds it would get smashed before it could detonate. On the other hand, they do put containers round bombs to increase the yield. They don't rely on the strength of the material- just the mass. If the case is heavy it will take some time to push the case apart. During that time the nuclear reaction can continue. The yield is improved that way. The practical problem of finding something strong enough is another matter- but it's fiction so nobody cares.

She isn't. I forgot to mention that these 12 foot tall; space- alien lizards are shape changers too. Sorry for any confusion I may have created by my error.

Yes, I knew that because I read it here http://www.davidicke.com/ Seriously, David Icke was, I understand, accused of being anti-Semitic. People assumed that his references to a world conspiracy of "reptiles" running the banks etc was a veiled attack on the Jews. His defence was that he really meant that the Queen, the Pope and a whole bunch of other people were 12 foot tall reptiles. (Obviously, but just any reptiles- but Space Alien Reptiles.) It's perfectly legal to be a loony in the UK, so he was not charged with any crime.

I think you may be flogging a dead horse there.

yes, there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Probably only by someone able to understand what "off topic" means

There is a difference, sweating skin is also cooled by evaporation, and the fan helps that too.

Ever walked across a lino floor with bare feet on a cool day? The floor is cooler than your feet so it conducts heat away from them and that makes your feet cooler. The carpet isn't as good at conducting heat so it doesn't work so well. Similarly the air is usually cooler than you (or your dog) and carries away heat. The fan makes that process work better because more air hits you and more air can carry more heat. If the air is warmer than the dog's body temperature (typically 38 to 40 C) this won't work. It will have to lose heat by panting.

"they fed one hundred men twelve pints of beer " By my maths that's roughly two or three ounces each so I guess they must have been American men.

A biochemist walks into a bar and asks the barman for a pint of adenosine triphosphat. "Certainly" says the barman, "That will be eighty p"

"Toys Impact on Child Development " What else would the point of toys be (from an evolutionary perspective)? But I still think it's spam.

You can see exactly where he gets the idea that average IQ will decline. In fact, it rises. He is, therefore, wrong. This statement "A problem now in the United States is that with the increasing stagnation of incomes among the poor and the middle class, intelligent, educated, and culturally sophisticated people have realized that the only way to improve their familial wealth is by having fewer and fewer children with each generation. But uneducated, unintelligent, and culturally underdeveloped people, who are minimally conscious of their social situation and unable to conceive of their lives as a planned project, are still thoughtlessly having huge families. " is, at best, false. The idea about "thoughtless poor people" is deeply offensive. It's also rather silly. Most "civilised" countries, rightly or wrongly, provide welfare assistance to children. However, as the children are not able to make use of this money, it is given to the parent(s) to use on the children's behalf. The more children they have, the more money the family receives. In many cases, this is a significant part of the family's income. Why would they want to reduce it by having fewer children? These families are not in a position to decide on the merit of the provision of a welfare state (at least not without the cooperation of others) and it would not be in their interests to do so. Many rich people will not vote for the reduction of child support payments because it is seen as punishing the children who are the one group whoo can not be responsible for the system. Of course, most people, of whatever income and background, have children as a result of a biologically produced desire to do so. The economics of the issue don't enter into it. Also, in the UK (I don'rt know about the US but I suspect things are similar), the current birth rate is not high enough to maintain the population. If it were not for immigration we would have a falling population. If you ask an economist about what generates wealth he will probably say that, in the end, it is people. Fewer people is not a good thing; who pays the pensions?

Learn to read. That way you could get to grips with the fact that at least one US politician has a lisp and that I already apologised for the error about Hesseltine. Then perhaps you might care to answer the questions I asked; twice.

Oops! sorry, I was in a hurry this morning. Can we pretend I said "So, on the basis of a waiter, a foreigner, and 5 people who are nearly all dead you are prepared to judge an entire country. If this were not a science site that might be OK. As it is, it's a bit silly." Also, now I have had a bit more time I tried this "Try listening to Zeinab Bedawi for a while on BBC World News. It affects me like chalk screeching on a chalk board." She has got a slight lisp (strictly a sibilant S rather than a lisp); big deal. I'm glad that tiny errors in speech don't move me to slander whole countries. (fortunately, miss-spelling Badawi doesn't trouble me much either). Perhaps the fact that she is Oxford educated explains it, though I doubt it. I also now have time to point out that Marat failed to answer my other points. i.e. There is the so called "Chinese" lisp (OK, technically, its rhotacism rather than a lisp but that's what it's called) Are you going to psychoanalyse one of the largest groups on the planet on the basis of one speech trait? and The reverse of the "English lisp" is common among French speakers trying to learn English. They pronounce th as either s or z. Are you going to speculate wildly that they all want to be geriatrics?

So, on the basis of a waiter, a foreigner, and 5 people who are all dead you are prepared to judge an entire country. If this were not a science site that might be OK. As it is, it's a bit silly.

Without any real data on the incidence of these speech impediments (any of which may be referred to colloquially as a lisp) there is nothing but guesswork and bias here. So, lets test what looks like the only really testable claim here. Marat's assertion that "If you watch BBC World News you will hear more than a few news presenters with very strong lisps, " Those newscasts are on-line. Please list a few of these lisping presenters, with web addresses. Incidentally, even if it's true that we have lots of them (there are certainly some) that just means we are more tolerant of variety. The same goes with our observation that you don't need "perfect" teeth to be a productive member of society. Incidentally, Re. "It is difficult to prove my assertion that it is much more common in England than in America, but there is a phrase, "the English lisp," though I know of no comparable phrase such as "the Australian lisp" or "the American lisp." " There is the so called "Chinese" lisp (OK, technically, its rhotacism rather than a lisp but that's what it's called) Are you going to psychoanalyse one of the largest groups on the planet on the basis of one speech trait? The reverse of the "English lisp" is common among French speakers trying to learn English. They pronounce th as either s or z. Are you going to speculate wildly that they all want to be geriatrics? God alone knows what he would have made of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_lisp Can I also point out the irony of a criticism of what is essentially lazy pronunciation from a representative of the country that turned "How do you do, you all?" into "Howdy yall"? On a lighter note

By far the most likely explanation for the "phenomenon" is that it's a product of Marat's imagination. He also ignores other bits of reality " How many American politicians have you ever seen with a strong lisp? None, because they would be laughed out of their business." Well, Rudy for one. "Notably the former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, has this type of lisp." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(speech) I have an alternative explanation or two. England has a lot of regional accents, some of these are quite difficult to understand. Marat has come here and, through a lack of familliarity, has failed to understand them. Rather than accept his own failure, he has imagined an epidemic of lisping so he can blame someone else. It is certainly possible that the "public school" accent is common in the groups he has encountered and he has mistaken a class distinction shibboleth for a lisp.

The pronunciation of r as w is also a class thing. It's commoner in those who are, or wish to be seen as being, upper class.

"after living for 13 years in England I would have to say that about 10% of the people there speak with a lisp, often in such an extreme form that they are nearly incompwehensiboo." I have lived in England a lot longer than that and I doubt that there are anything like that many people with a lisp. Do you actually think a society could get by if one in 10 couldn't make themselves understood? Before launching off into some explanation of this "observation" I think you need to show some sort of evidence that it's plausible never mind true.

Personally, I'm reasonably happy with bashing religion, but you are wrong anyway.The particular irrational crap they are fed is what the Chinese call communism (which isn't the real thing, but that's beside the point).

An answer to the question would be that, whatever it is that IQ tests measure, the Chinese have lots of it. The more difficult question would be what does the IQ test actually measure?

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/teams/team=43942/index.html

That joke would be better if British Petroleum still existed, or if you gave BP the right name. This one is much better.

Just as soon as they show me some evidence, I'm prepared to learn about it. But you are right about this just degenerating into a slanging match. Nice cartoon BTW.