MigL

OK. Ken Wilson : When you subtract the infinite virtual chickens that went everywhere, you're left with the renormalized chicken across the road. and Why does a hamburger have less energy than a steak ? Because it's in its ground state.

Evolution of a Physics problem through the ages... WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD ? Aristotle: It is the nature of chickens to cross roads. Isaac Newton: Chickens at rest tend to stay at rest, chickens in motion tend to cross roads. Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends on your frame of reference. Werner Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast. Wolfgang Pauli: There already was a chicken on this side of the road.

Ooooow ! Wives, sisters, and girlfriends maybe. But mothers and daughters are off-limits.

Sorry Koti. I wish Venus was like it was depicted in 1930s pulp sci-fi also. ( Edgar Rice Burroughs novels ) PH3 is a strong reducer ( stronger than ammonia ) and readily oxidized ( actually burns ) to Phosphorus Pentoxide, or to Phosphoric acid if water is present , so it doesn't last long. Since the Venusian atmosphere is strongly acidic, the other method for producing large amounts of Phosphine ( if actual, much higher than in Earth's atmosphere where it is due to bio-decay ), by reaction of white Phosphorus with Sodium/Potassium Hydroxide, is probably a non--starter. Thanks for the link, Area54

Yeah, I make Phosphine ( see my profile ). I won't go into specifics, but it involves the continuous conversion of white Phosphorus to 20-25% red Phosphorus ( with heat ), and then reacting the slurry in very high strength Phos acid at temps of 300 degrees with superheated steam sparging, according to this patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US3371994A/en None of the required conditions seem unlikely to be found on Venus, so I would suspect a geological process, rather than bio-decay, as the cause ,IF it does turn out to actually be Phosphine.

I find your post funny, because I can relate. ( my friends would think I was a pompous ass if I used those words in conversation ) Looks like you've mastered the art.

That's the problem with conspiracy theorists... They will not be educated, making fun of them re-enforces their beliefs, and if you ignore them, they run wild. It's settled, then. Off to concentration camps with the lot.

As with all conspiracy theories, people who 'THINK' they understand, ARE the problem. No evidence, just 'coincidences and a gut feeling' ??? I thought we didn't do conspiracy theories on SFN. And with crap like this, the more exposure they get, the worse it becomes. ( I'd actually consider shutting down the thread, but that would be censorship )

Fracking involves pumping water ( with some biocide ) into underground cavities containing gas/oil. And is already a dangerous process as it leads to seismic instability. And you intend to pump chemicals which will essentially dissolve gold ore ???

Given that up to a third of the population of Europe died during the plague ( 1350s ), and that there wasn't much travelling or intermarriage outside of local towns, it is also possible that all of any one particular person's genes were completely wiped out. Even those of Charlemagne. Or am I over-analyzing ?

Maybe so; that's why my whole post was questioning. Thank you for the clarification. I have previously brought up the 'community policing' model, and am very much in favor of it.

That reads like you think the police have been used by others to subjugate and oppress certain groups. Doesn't that make the police mere pawns of other players ? If so, isn't the current situation misdirecting anger at police, when it should be directed at those players that used them ? That same police also provides protection for me, and the people of Chicago; I don't want them to be reluctant to do that job for fear it might lead to un-informed rioting. Or am I mis-interpreting your post ?

I don't see it that way Zap. That young man could have been carrying an armed nuclear weapon when the police shot him. And with current sensibilities, one person could have said "police brutality", and rioting would still have ensued. Americans seem to have lost their trust of classic authority figures, and now place blind trust in whoever repeatedly scrams loudest or makes the most outlandish claims ( and it does explain why D Trump is your President ). It doesn't make sense that the answer to one person being hurt, is to hurt another dozen or so, and wreck their property.

Let's see if we can get back to relevant discussion. Chicago saw massive rioting the other night. https://www.foxnews.com/us/widespread-looting-reported-in-chicago-after-police-involved-shooting and in case you don't like Fox... https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/09/police-involved-shooting-reported-in-englewood/ Apparently an armed felon shot at police, who then returned fire and wounded him. A local individual then incited the riots, saying police didn't do enough to de-escalate, and used extreme/deadly force on a young man. Have we now replaced police authority with mob authority ? Why are people 'following' those who incite riots, burn or destroy property, and injure innocents ? That is the MO lynch mobs used, one ignorant person without all the facts, incites violence against a group he hates. Seems to me America has a more serious disease than Covid-19.

It might seem to go against common sense, but more police could actually lower tensions in a community. When there were enough cops to 'walk the beat', they actually got to know people in their neighborhoods ( no, I'm not old enough to remember that ). Knowing a person, and their circumstances, gives police the 'human touch', leeway in how they address a situation, and can have a more personal conversation/de-escalation in mental health, suicide, and domestic disturbance cases. They don't simply show up in several squad cars with their guns drawn, and then all hell breaks loose. ( is that enough clarification, Drumbo ? )

Yes, you have made your position clear, and sorry if I wasn't more clear myself; that isn't what I wish to discuss. But it can't be just me that finds this poll counter-intuitive. I would not have expected those results. That the very group that is most affected by bad policing, in fact, want MORE police presence. The article doesn't quite go there, but it 'hints' at the white progressive attitude towards black people , that "we know what's best for you". meanwhile, what black Americans really want is more police presence in their under-policed neighborhoods.

Also from the link "These findings are just the latest survey evidence to run contrary to the intuitions underlying the progressive push to defund police departments. They also confirm the view that some black communities are likely under-policed, suggesting the need for more, rather than fewer, police... ...Almost as many consistently oppose the move to "defund" the police, perhaps explaining why many national Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, have been loath to publicly support the movement. Even in Minneapolis, many black residents oppose efforts to defund—a stark departure from the views of the majority-white city council." But why bother talking about the points that don't conform to your personal narrative, when you can just "sigh" and dismiss them. Silly me, for thinking this was a discussion forum.

Then maybe the signs should say "Police Need to be More Respectful" instead of "Defund the Police"

Came across an interesting poll... "Four in Five Black Americans Want Same or More Cop Presence in Neighborhood" https://freebeacon.com/national-security/four-in-five-black-americans-want-same-or-more-cop-presence-in-neighborhood/ So who exactly is demanding the defunding of Police ?

I believe Area54 politely asked you three times to clarify your position. It would have been common curtesy to comply, instead of bragging about your stock portfolio.

You remind me of another member we had a few years back, who continuously bragged about his stock portfolio. He crashed and burned very quickly. Are you really participating/contributing in the discussion if you post cryptic comments, then refuse to clarify when politely asked ?

It's a good thing most of us ignore your 'generally disagreeable' position, because it's as clear as mud.

There is a certain simplistic truth to that statement. ( I did not downvote ) We all make choices based on our own priorities, and should be responsible for those choices. The OP seems to believe a 'chemical imbalance' absolves the perpetrator of a crime from responsibility. As an example, drunkenness is a temporary 'chemical imbalance' which affects judgement; are we going to absolve drunk drivers who kill others of responsibility ? I don't think anyone here would support that. Even if you propose that the driver had previously made the choice to drink and drive, the counterargument is that alcoholism is a recognised disease, so he/she is still not responsible for their actions. So where do you draw the line of accountability ? Society has no choice but to consider most to have free will and to be responsible for their actions. So, if you choose to steal ( and possibly hurt others in the process ), instead of making do with what you have, asking for government assistance, or even begging, because you are hungry ( or greedy ), you have made your choice, and are held accountable by society.

Simply astounding, how insignificant we are.

Mae West would have been impressed. She said ... "Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me ?" You have a whole universe in yours !