Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Content Count

    23659
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    102

Strange last won the day on January 20

Strange had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3912 Glorious Leader

About Strange

  • Rank
    SuperNerd

Profile Information

  • Location
    Italia
  • College Major/Degree
    None
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Occupation
    Engineer/Writer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There is nothing magically nice about scientists. It is not like they are all Vulcans dealing only with facts and logic. There are a few very well respected physicists with blogs where they will occasionally make pretty ... uhm ... "direct" comments about other physicists who they disagree with.
  2. Although, all those vehicles plugged in to charge can also be a resource used to help load balance the grid. For example, people all drive home at about the same time, plug their cars in and go indoors to make a cup of tea or cook dinner. The grid can "borrow" power from the cars (they wont all be completely discharged) to meet that short term demand before going back to charging the cars. A smart grid will also know not to start charging all the cars at the same time (massive surge in demand) but to enable them on a schedule - perhaps based on requests / priority information from the vehicles. Maybe if you have a doctor on call next door, she gets first dibs on power (perhaps even borrowing from your batteries, if they are already well charged) and then you get charged next. When the doctor is not working, but you are, then you get priority. (And, yes, systems are already being designed to do that sort of thing.)
  3. Although it usually eaten raw. (It doesn't have much taste.) You can also have saké with dried fugu fin. That is quite tasty.
  4. I would be cautious about opinions of someone selling their own alternative skin care products.
  5. Not at all. An argument can be qualitatively correct (eg. “nuclear power is very safe”) even if it is quantitatively wrong (“it has only ever killed one person”).
  6. A donut with a handle is diffeomorphic to a loving cup
  7. ! Moderator Note I will also issue my standard warning to people: do not download Word documents from unknown sources. @nobody You need to present your idea here. If, for some reason, you need to link a document with extra details then please save it as a PDF first.
  8. I think a city environment is important just because of the numbers involved. If someone at a rural market comes into occasional contact with an infected bat (or snake, as most of the reports I have read suggest) the chance of a virus is low. And then the number of people they might pass it on to is also quite low. And so on. In a busy city market, thousands of people might come into contact with multiple infected animals, every day. So the chances of the virus jumping the species barrier is higher. And after that happens, they will come into close contact with hundreds, maybe thousands, more people everyday. And they may travel larger distances, contacting people who are travelling by train or plane to other large cities, etc.
  9. ! Moderator Note The rules require that you present your claims here, not just link to a video.
  10. That is exactly the sort of comment that moderators here do make to people who cross (or get close to the line). Persistent offenders may get suspended or even banned. The only way you seem to be out of step with others is in seeing offensive language where others see none. I don't believe such a general attitude exists or would be tolerated by the moderation team. Stating that people who believe the world is flat are ignorant is not an insult. It is a statement of fact. Saying that if they are not ignorant they must be lying would probably not be permitted if aimed at a specific individual, even if not a member here. But as a general statement about the motives of a group, it seems defensible. As zapatos says, we know that many people lie about certain subjects for political or financial reasons. The rules, and how rigidly they are enforced, varies between forums. For example, we are fairly relaxed about general members reminding others of the rules but another forum I am a member of has a very strict rule that only moderators can do anything that looks like moderating. One has to find the forum or forums that suit you. (Which you could choose to interpret as "if you don't like it here, you can go elsewhere" )
  11. I think that is kind of on the right track. At first I though the long narrowing tube went inside a bottle or container. But now I think it is more likely that that is where the liquid/gas comes out and the ground glass bit goes through a tube. A bit like this: https://www.exportersindia.com/arth-enterprises/glass-stopcock-ambala-india-1948044.htm Instead of controlling the flow along the tube, it lets it drip out of the bottom of this tap. Like this, but in glass (and for more controlled/precise delivery): https://www.morebeer.com/products/plastic-carboy-6-gal-spigot.html You could try emailing a company like this: http://www.safetyemporium.com/laboratory/glassware/adapters/ to see if they have ever come across it.
  12. That's interesting. It made me wonder if it could be some sort of measuring device - you turn the tap to one position to fill the tube with liquid, then turn it to another to release exactly that volume. But it doesn't look big enough to hold 25ml.
  13. So, presumably that would have lined up with a hole in the container that this stopper went into so it could act as a tab. Quite likely for gas, as studiot suggests. Beyond that, I have no idea what gas (or liquid) it would be for. It looks like quite a narrow hole, so it would be a limited flow. Although, as it was a plating line, it could have been for delivering controlled amounts of acids or other chemicals. Just did an image search for "ground glass tap" and didn't see anything quite like this.
  14. I cannot extract that meaning from the sequence of posts. Let's put it in context: A: "There are two sides: people who think the world is round and those who think it is flat." B: "There are not two sides, there are those who know what the world is like and others who are ignorant or lying" Note that A does not claim to be on one side or the other. Note that B does not say anything about A's beliefs. Also, even if A now says "And I am in the second group" then factually they are either ignorant (or misinformed) or they know that the world is not flat and so they are lying. If they refuse to admit they are ignorant, that doesn't make them a liar, as you suggest. No. If he tells them climate change is wrong and the Earth is flat then he is only a liar if he does it knowing it is not true. If he is ignorant of the facts then he is not lying. No. They are lying unless they are just ignorant (even if they are unwilling to admit it). Or misinformed or wrong for some other reason.
  15. Looking at the thread in question, it is very obviously not aimed at the other member. The OP started out saying there are two sides. The person you are quoting was responding to that by, quite correctly, pointing out that, as far as the science goes, there is only one side. Their characterisation of "the other side" could not have been aimed at the OP because they were still pretending to be "just asking questions." (And yes, this is "semantics"; which means the meanings of words.) It is not a general attitude about disagreement. It is about people who wilfully disregard scientific evidence and continue to repeat falsehoods even after being shown that they are false. I'm sure there is a word for people who do that...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.