MigL

Cats trained as spies, DrmDoc ? interesting but unworkable, I'm afraid. I don't see a problem with the black tux, Omega Seamaster or even the Walther PPK. But shifting gears in the Aston Martin would be a problem.

And I see a lot of parallels, CharonY. One woman, and O Kahder was only one person who launched his lawsuit. There are no independent health providers in Canada. While health care is run by the provinces, oversight and universality is the responsibility of the federal government. so if you can make the argument that the Canadian government didn't do enough to protect the rights of O Kahder when he was captured, convicted and imprisoned by Americans, you can certainly make the case that they didn't do enough to protect the rights of these women. Legal experts in the US certainly aren't questioning the conviction, and the family of the slain medic was awarded a wrongful death conviction against O Kahder, which the Canadian government has seen fit to disregard, and hide O Kahder's $ 10.5mil, so it cannot be touched. I guess protecting the rights of aboriginal women isn't as 'glamorous' as protecting the rights of a terrorist. But you're right, this is off topic. I won't bring it up again. But I'd rather my government treated our aboriginals better.

If by 'substance' you mean solidity or presence I would think not. Elementary particles are dimensionless, and compound particles such as protons/neutrons are, as a result,essentially empty space, as are the atoms and molecules they make up. It is the fields and interactions which give rise to those properties you inquire about. As a matter of fact, QFT says the fields and interactions are even responsible for the particles.

Not sure I understand your definition of 'legal', DrmDoc. Had the courts let it pass, the immigration ban would have been perfectly legal. And they have given the go-ahead for a more limited ban, so it will be legal. Immoral maybe, but once law, certainly legal.

No the EM field does not expand. The field is 'there', and if enough energy is localized ( excitation of the field ) at a particular position, we have the real 'particle' of that field. If that excitation is 'stabilized' by other particles/excitations of their particular fields, it can remain localized ( in a nucleus, say ). There are no 'boys' here, like you might be used to dealing with. Just men and women.

Really ? He always seemed so frail. I would have thought 70 kg.

It wasn't directed at anyone here, or violated women, but rather my Prime Minister. I will wait and see what ( if any ) compensation these women receive.

Now the foul-mouthed 'Gooch' has been escorted out of the ( white ) building too. This administration is falling apart. ( not quickly enough, I might add )

I don't think so. There would have been no trial involved.

Don't worry. All those women's rights were violated. Our Prime Minister will issue each one of them an apology and $10.5 mill in compensation. Oh, wait a minute. They're not terrorists. Forget that !

The Observable Universe is finite. Anything outside of that may as well not exist, because it can never affect us in any way.

"Inertial mass is massless' That makes no sense. Read a little about the subject before making baseless assertions.

Everyone at my work is a First-Aid responder, and I've personally had training for over 25 yrs in both CPR and defibrillator use. If a defibrillator is not available, good old fashioned CPR, consisting of chest compressions and assisted breathing is still effective until emergency medical assistance arrives. It needs to be started immediately as we are taught you have a 4 min window before irreparable brain damage. The compressions actually compress the heart and circulate some blood to the brain. Compressions are approx. 100-120 per minute ( to the tune of the BeeGee's 'Stayn' Alive ') And you keep going until Emergency Medical assistance arrives, or someone else takes over.

It was good to see J McCain get up from his hospital bed to cast the deciding vote against the gutting of ObamaCare. His reason for voting ( along with two other Republicans ) against party lines - " Because it's the right thing to do "

Maybe it was a misquote, but one of the scientists rates the explosive power of a GRB as just below the Big Bang. Which of course, was not an explosion. ( no wonder we have so many misconceptions )

Aww come on... The whole point of nuclear deterrence is to convince the other side ( potential enemies ) that if they launch a nuclear strike against us they will be destroyed also. IOW you are ready and willing to launch. That's how deterrence works and has worked since 1945. If you say you will 'second guess' your President ( because he may be a nut-job ), you are giving wiggle room to the other nut-jobs ( like in North Korea ), who then think they might get away with a nuclear strike against us.

Or it could be circulation/blood pressure issues...

Tend to agree with Swansont and John C. Everybody makes mistakes, misinterprets a relationship or drinks too much and sends a stupid pic. That being said, harassment is in the 'eye of the beholder'. If you find it offensive, tell him so, and if it continues IT IS definitely harassment. If it stops, give him the benefit of the doubt. Everyone who makes a stupid mistake deserves a second chance. Otherwise, it wasn't much of a friendship to begin with.

Overpopulation ? That's not why we went to the Moon, or need to go to Mars. Canada has 33 Million people. And 95 % of those people live on much less than 1 % of the land area. Land which is way more hospitable than Mars. And I'm not including vast areas of North-Eastern Russia, most of Western Australia, jungles of Brazil, pampas of Argentina, and all of Antartica. Heck, even the bottoms of shallow seas/oceans are more hospitable. We have proven we can get to the Moon. We need to prove we can get to Mars/other planets. When the cost/benefit ratio becomes favorable ( in terms of resources ) people WILL go there. But, other than bases, for staging/exploration/resources, we will never have permanent 'settlements' there.

A paper from Jul 2013 'Stable Carbon isotopes of C3 plant resins and ambers record changes in atmospheric oxygen since the Triassic', available for free as a PDF, suggests that O2 levels were much lower than previously thought, and only about 10-15 % concentration in the atmosphere. This seems to go against the commonly held belief that higher O2 levels allowed Dinosaurs to grow to such large sizes. Volcanic activity was much higher in that era, the seas much shallower and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere 5 to 10 times higher than current levels; And, on the face of it, this seems an argument against RUNAWAY global warming, because global temps came down from a level approx. 7 deg higher than current levels, instead of a runaway increase. Is this paper factually wrong ? Is it drawing the wrong conclusions from the findings ? Or am I drawing the wrong conclusions ? Tappert_GCA_2013.pdf

Sorry, could someone get rid of this. I seem to have double posted.

The OP might be an almond, and you a pecan, Baron. But you're both nuts.

Energy gravitates, Andy. If you could concentrate an amount of energy above the Earth, it would warp space-time so that there would be an upward force toward it; And if a large enough concentration, you would actually 'fall' up towards it. Unfortunately this energy concentration would be equivalent to the mass-energy of the Earth ( remember when Strange asked you to calculate it ? ), and the tidal forces would destroy our world. This is equivalent to points between the Earth and Moon, or Earth and Sun, where the net force is zero as one attraction cancels out the other, while technically in both potential wells ( look up Lagrange points ).

Thanks for itemizing the 'vested interests' of various groups/governments. But you left out one very important group. What does the Syrian population want ?

Forget the specialty diets that tell you 'cut out all carbs' or 'cut out all fats'. The human body is an adaptive machine. If you go without fats ( for example ) for any length of time, the body will actually start 'cannibalizing' muscle mass, or protein, in order to store fat deposits for 'lean' times. This is an evolutionary mechanism. Your best bet, is a balanced diet, including ALL food groups ( variety keeps it interesting ), while reducing caloric intake, and exercising regularly. Remember that even exercise is an adaptive mechanism. If you're just interested in burning calories, use the biggest muscles in your body ( buttocks and thighs ) in some repetitive motion like running or cycling. If you want to build muscle, on the other hand, you need to use more weight than your muscles can currently handle; Otherwise they have no need to grow/strengthen.