The last two sentences of the article explain it, but very obscurely. There are talking about reacting ultramafic rock (which contains MgO, but the article does not say that) with the CO2.
As to the question of how the polystyrene is separated from the magnesite, the process would probably be one of grinding up rock then churning it with an aerated suspension of the spheres, and the magnesite would settle out. Washing and skimming would separate them. The density of polystyrene is about that of water, and by varying the manufacture can be made slightly denser or lighter as desired for best removal.
The last two sentences of the article, a comment by another researcher, provide the only information in the article about what they are actually talking about - which is converting magnesium oxide containing minerals (ultramafic rocks) into magnesium carbonate. If this process were adopted on any scale, actual mining of magnesite would likely stop since vast amounts of pure magnesium oxide would be a byproduct.
The last two sentences in the article provide the explanatory link, but not very well:
"It is really exciting that this group has worked out the mechanism of natural magnesite crystallization at low temperatures, as has been previously observed—but not explained—in weathering of ultramafic rocks. The potential for accelerating the process is also important, potentially offering a benign and relatively inexpensive route to carbon storage, and perhaps even direct CO2 removal from air."
Ultramafic rocks are rich in magnesium, with low silica content; the most common form is peridotite. There was a/. story four months ago about this specific subject, where peridotite outcrops in Oman were discussed. So rocks that have a substantial content of MgO (but are not pure magnesium oxide) are what would be used.
This requires literally grinding up a mountain of peridotite, and treating it with an aqueous suspension of these plastic spheres to precipitate magnesite. Presumably there would be some plan to either build new mountains of the unreacted peridotite residue + MgCO3, or to put it back where we dug it up in the first place. If we are actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere (rather that trapping CO2 being produced at a source) then a vast amount of air must be brought into contact with this vast lake of sludge.
There are other proposals for trapping CO2 that might be much easier to do. Reacting seawater with CO2 to precipitate calcium carbonate (accelerating the natural process of CO2 removal by the ocean) is already being done in a pilot plant. The CaCO3 produced could be pile up into artificial islands or somesuch.
Yes, the military high explosives do leave residues at a very low level. Tests of this (where they explode munitions in piles of snow) show that "on average, 99.997% or more of the RDX and TNT was consumed" (used Sci-Hub to read). So a few grams of a mildly toxic material that breaks down fairly quickly in low concentrations. UXOs would simply be disarmed and removed since these are precision bombing operations though know exactly where they are.
The fire retardant that is used in fire bombing is Phos-Chek. Which consists of "include ammonium polyphosphate, diammonium phosphate, diammonium sulfate, monoammonium phosphate, attapulgus clay, guar gum (or a derivative of guar gum), and trade secret performance additives". The Phos-Chek is dyed red in part with iron oxide. the ammonium phosphate fertilizers are used in ABC fire extinguishers as well.
And in this report we read: "Fire suppression chemicals have minor toxicological
or ecological effects and, as a result, do not generally harm terrestrial ecosystems. Major impacts,
suppression chemicals have on the environment, may be through the adverse effects on water quality,
and subsequently to aquatic ecosystems. Retardants may encourage eutrophication and, in some cases,
contribute to fish kill when applied on watersheds, or if accidentally applied directly to water bodies."
About what you'd expect from spreading fertilizer.
Also, you could test for the effects of gravity by turning it upside-down. If the mirror was still the right shape, then gravity is not an issue.
Ah, grasshopper. You fall for the very reasonable assumption that the Hubble was flown with an incorrectly figured mirror because no one on the ground could test it properly and find out that this was the case.
That isn't what happened.
When the mis-figuring was discovered by NASA, in orbit, I too was stunned. How could the engineers have relied on just one test to verify it?
They didn't.
The mirror was over-budget, and behind schedule, and management at Perkin-Elmer wanted to ship it. The mis-assembled instrument was the contractually agreed method of mirror acceptance, and the one used in the figuring process. When engineers found after the figuring that simple tests showed that it was incorrect, P-E management didn't care, and didn't tell NASA.
There were people at P-E who knew perfectly well that the mirror would not work. But hey, the managers probably got bonuses when the mirror left the facility.
It is simply that he made a false claim - that there were huge abandoned fields of turbines left to rust - which he is now trying to walk back without admitting the attempted deception.
Older turbines are being replace by newer ones that are more efficient (and profitable), the fields are not abandoned, their output is actually increasing with the new turbines, and the older turbines are not being "left to rust", they are being removed.
There were two small wind farms on Hawaii, that were built in the late 1980s that did deteriorate due to lack of maintenance by their owner/operators: the Kamaoa Wind Farm with 9.3 MW capacity, and the Lalamilo Wind Farm of only 2.3 MW, and which were shut down, dismantled and removed between 2006 and 2010. Meanwhile much bigger, modern wind farms have replaced them, in many cases at almost the same location (only a couple of kilometers farther away). For example the Pakini Nui Wind Farm of 21 MW is only 2.4 km from the old Kamaoa Wind Farm.
But those 11.6 MW of old small late 1980s era turbines have been collectively replaced by 206 MW of capacity, with 27.3 MW currently being added (which includes putting 3.3 MW of new turbines at that old Lalamilo Wind Farm.
Pretty much the same as any other new power system that is deployed as a pilot project, then eventually shut down and replaced by more modern versions.
But never fear, the next time wind power comes up SuperKendall will be making this claim of the fantasy of huge abandoned wind farms left to rust again, even as at all of the locations he claims have been abandoned continue to expand their wind power production with new modern turbines.
We already have huge fields of dead rusting wind turbines in California, and the south of Hawaii. Too expensive to remove so they just sit there, aging....
I notice that when you repeat this B.S. you never provide links to your "alternative facts".
Note here is a lengthy in-depth discussion of the origins of this lie. It started with a climate denier doing the old distorted facts game - pointing out initially a large number of turbines were installed at the fields in California and Hawaii - but that there many fewer now. But omitting the correct explanation that it was because they were replaced by fewer, much larger, more efficient turbines. And no, the old ones are not just left there, they are removed over time. The actual percentage of non-operating turbines at any given time is about 2%. The fantasy version where there are dead fields (to say nothing of huge dead fields) is the result of climate deniers taking the original BS claim, and extrapolating from it in their imaginations, then posting it as if it was a fact.
I drive through two of the three California fields frequently, watched them go up and evolve, and they are impressive with the huge new towers spinning slowly, but producing far more power than the old ones - which have disappeared. Fields of abandoned turbines are nowhere to be seen. But who should I believe, citation-free climate denier rants or my own lyin' eyes?
Naturally you are using low-tech high polluting old methods of processing being a hobbyist. And millions of small scale miners in the Third World do the same. And of course the products of bad mining practices of a century ago are not going away, and will continue to require management.
But pollution is not a necessary result of properly regulated industrial scale modern operations.
In its final days of operation (the mine closed in 2000) the main problem with the water discharge from the Homestake Mine (second largest in world history) was that it was hot, having been removed from deep in the Earth where temperatures are high. This required cooling in a reservoir before it could be safely discharged, chemical treatment had removed chemical contaminants fairly easily.
The most recent developments in gold extraction is the use of bioleaching - chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfide to break down the ore and release gold particles. This method is cheaper than using cyanide, and can be used with the lowest grades of ore.
Wrong. The US is the third largest producer of raw steel in the world, 88 million tons last year.
Aside from the U.S. being in 2017 the fourth largest producer of raw steel, not third, behind China, Japan, and India, you should be made aware of the fact that, exactly as rsivergun said, the U.S. produced only 22 million tons of pig iron in 2017, the remainder of the 82 million tons of raw steel produced (73%) was remelted scrap. So about three quarters of U.S. steel is from scrap, not from iron ore.
And the U.S. produces only 4.8% of the world's steel, and only 1.7% of the its pig iron! China makes more than ten times as much steel, and thirty two times as much pig iron, as the U.S. So in terms of the world market - the U.S. really doesn't produce steel anymore. The U.S. high point in producing steel from ore (rather than just remelting existing steel) was 1973 when it produced 92 million tons, more than four times as much.
Any documentation comes from 2nd century, and is very obviously tainted -- either comes from Christians themselves or is a copy of their works. If a preacher leading a popular movement of anything of the scale postulated in the Bible happened, it would be mentioned in secular sources, which have quite detailed records of those times. Yet, any such mentions are conspicuously absent.
Convincing forgery is tricky to do. Most would be scribe-forgers altering documents they copy to insert things they would like to be there rarely, if ever, sophisticated at who do construct forged passages that would state out from sophisticated textual analysis (consideration of context and textual flow, writing style, word choice, etc.). So modern scholars have a pretty good handle on when passages in ancient texts by one author are altered by insertions of others.
We have Antiquities of the Jews written by the Jewish historian Josephus about 60 years after the death of Jesus, i.e. written in the First (not Second) Century. There are two passages in this that refer to Jesus that do appear and seem to be originally authentic references from Josephus's hand. They have been altered by Christian scribes to make them more affirmative of Christian claims, but do not appear to be wholesale fabrications inserted later. On the bare question of Jesus's existence the mere fact that any mentions would appear in Josephus's writing supports the historical existence of Jesus.
This reference meets the demands you make for there to be external surviving references of Jesus's existence. So they are "conspicuously absent" only if you ignore the references that do indeed exist.
Also, you have a very exaggerated sense for how detailed and thorough the surviving records about the First Century Roman Empire really are, and accounts of happenings in the provinces are nearly non-existent. We did not have a single contemporary piece of evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate who ruled Judea for 10 years under his name appeared on an inscription found in 1963. Before that the only evidence of his existence were Christian literature and three mentions in non-Christian sources (Josephus was one). There many important Roman documents from that era we know of that have been entirely lost. One example: the last Testament of Augustus Caesar, we did not have a single copy of until fragments of it inscribed on plaques were found in Turkey about 100 years ago.
On the other hand, there was a lot of religious kooks (this particular thing hasn't changed...), thus it's possible the story has some basis in truth, but has been mangled beyond recognition.
So, it's like that old Russian joke: "Did you hear that in Moscow they give Volga cars for free?" "Sure, they do, you just got three details wrong. First, not in Moscow but in Leningrad. Second, not Volga cars but Zavmash bikes. Third, they don't give but take away.". Thus, Jesus might indeed have existed, save for some little details...
All this is absolutely true. We do not have any reliable accounts of really anything about Jesus and in keeping with what one expects from oral accounts, the later things were written down the more extravagant and fanciful (or imaginative) they become. But if we restrict the question to the most basic one - whether there was such a person as Jesus - then we have pretty good evident that it is yes.
The earliest evidence is best, and that would be the authentic letters of Paul (there are fake ones in the New Testament also) which were written within 20 years of the death of Jesus by a man who had become an adherent within 10 years of his death, and knew several people who had followed Jesus and knew Jesus personally including his brother James (who is also mentioned in Josephus). This documentation at least to existence is as good or better than most people we know of from ancient times who who were not leading members of society or else authors themselves. It is t
Its a bit odd/over reaching to be put into legislation. But so is the CDC studying gun related injuries. Do they also study vehicle collisions, lawn mower accidents, or people being crushed to death by vending machines?
As a matter of fact they do. Cause of accidental death is absolutely an area of study.
"Stronger" is a very poor term to use. Adaptation is dependent on the local environment and ecology. Often the invasive species has simply escaped the predators or diseases that keep them in check back home. A plant that takes over a new environment from native species that have local pathogens to contend with because it arrived without its native pathogens is not "stronger" it is just lucky.
It is true that the term did not exist until the 20th Century, but Darwin actually formulated the concept, and the rabbit invasion of Australia that occurred soon after 24 wild rabbits were released there in 1859 attracted a lot of attention.
Of course the rats were not introduced intentionally. Neither were tumbleweeds which came from Ukraine (probably in wheat seed shipments) and were first recorded in the U.S. in 1877. Nor the various invasive ant species (fire ants, crazy yellow ants, etc.) plaguing many parts of the world. Simply having people travel about without careful decontamination of belongings has created a lot of invasive introductions.
Indeed, there is a case of a woman eating 1.5 kg of brodifacoum bait, and she survived. The treatment for brodifacoum poisoning is simply taking vitamin K. The poisoning effect is due to shutting down vitamin K synthesis, so simply taking vitamin K (which your body is not making) is a completely effective treatment.
Not according to this article. More than half of its money comes from the gun industry. And then there are all those foreign contributions, including Russian sources.
Trump has damaged America's credibility, but honestly, we're largely trading on Trumps credibility right now, not "America's"; so when Trump goes, the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal -- provided they do, a do so quickly the long term damage should be small -- the chaos will belong to "Trump" not so much to "America"; especially if America is seen struggling to contain Trump, which it is; and things go back to normal when he's gone.
Umm... no. Trump has sucked the entire Republican Party into supporting his constant lying and (as the revelation today of Putin's buddy Viktor Vekselberg paying half a million into Trump's slush fund to silence women prior to the election) proven collusion with an enemy state. They are working hard to protect him in every way they can, an entire two generations of Republican politicians, from the oldest to the youngest.
Other nations will not believe that any Republican administration can be trusted for a few decades at least, until a new generation (or two) has replaced the current ones. So believing things will "go back to normal" after Trump requires one to believe that other nations will assume, with high confidence, that no Republican will again control Congress or the White House for that whole span of time.
Several. Yeah. You know very few, and very little.
The Late Great Planet Earth predicted in 1970 that the Apocalypse would occur within one generation of the founding of the State of Israel (and thus by 1988 by the reckoning of its author Hal Lindsay). It sold 28 million copies by 1990, and millions who read it believed Lindsay's every word (including my grandmother at whose home I read the book myself). She marveled at the fact that she was living at the "end of days".
Slashdot Mirror
Data is a collective noun. You can treat it as either singular or plural as long as you stick with it.
As for datum, that's not a word people use. It's data or piece of data.
"Datum" is in active use, but not as a singular for "data". Instead it means some kind of reference point as in , for example geodetic datum.
"... vast amounts of pure magnesium carbonate would be a byproduct."
The last two sentences of the article explain it, but very obscurely. There are talking about reacting ultramafic rock (which contains MgO, but the article does not say that) with the CO2.
As to the question of how the polystyrene is separated from the magnesite, the process would probably be one of grinding up rock then churning it with an aerated suspension of the spheres, and the magnesite would settle out. Washing and skimming would separate them. The density of polystyrene is about that of water, and by varying the manufacture can be made slightly denser or lighter as desired for best removal.
The last two sentences of the article, a comment by another researcher, provide the only information in the article about what they are actually talking about - which is converting magnesium oxide containing minerals (ultramafic rocks) into magnesium carbonate. If this process were adopted on any scale, actual mining of magnesite would likely stop since vast amounts of pure magnesium oxide would be a byproduct.
The last two sentences in the article provide the explanatory link, but not very well:
"It is really exciting that this group has worked out the mechanism of natural magnesite crystallization at low temperatures, as has been previously observed—but not explained—in weathering of ultramafic rocks. The potential for accelerating the process is also important, potentially offering a benign and relatively inexpensive route to carbon storage, and perhaps even direct CO2 removal from air."
Ultramafic rocks are rich in magnesium, with low silica content; the most common form is peridotite. There was a /. story four months ago about this specific subject, where peridotite outcrops in Oman were discussed. So rocks that have a substantial content of MgO (but are not pure magnesium oxide) are what would be used.
This requires literally grinding up a mountain of peridotite, and treating it with an aqueous suspension of these plastic spheres to precipitate magnesite. Presumably there would be some plan to either build new mountains of the unreacted peridotite residue + MgCO3, or to put it back where we dug it up in the first place. If we are actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere (rather that trapping CO2 being produced at a source) then a vast amount of air must be brought into contact with this vast lake of sludge.
There are other proposals for trapping CO2 that might be much easier to do. Reacting seawater with CO2 to precipitate calcium carbonate (accelerating the natural process of CO2 removal by the ocean) is already being done in a pilot plant. The CaCO3 produced could be pile up into artificial islands or somesuch.
Yes, the military high explosives do leave residues at a very low level. Tests of this (where they explode munitions in piles of snow) show that "on average, 99.997% or more of the RDX and TNT was consumed" (used Sci-Hub to read). So a few grams of a mildly toxic material that breaks down fairly quickly in low concentrations. UXOs would simply be disarmed and removed since these are precision bombing operations though know exactly where they are.
The fire retardant that is used in fire bombing is Phos-Chek. Which consists of "include ammonium polyphosphate, diammonium phosphate, diammonium sulfate, monoammonium phosphate, attapulgus clay, guar gum (or a derivative of guar gum), and trade secret performance additives". The Phos-Chek is dyed red in part with iron oxide. the ammonium phosphate fertilizers are used in ABC fire extinguishers as well.
And in this report we read: "Fire suppression chemicals have minor toxicological or ecological effects and, as a result, do not generally harm terrestrial ecosystems. Major impacts, suppression chemicals have on the environment, may be through the adverse effects on water quality, and subsequently to aquatic ecosystems. Retardants may encourage eutrophication and, in some cases, contribute to fish kill when applied on watersheds, or if accidentally applied directly to water bodies."
About what you'd expect from spreading fertilizer.
Unlike some posters here, I do not mock people who find it difficult to defy their compassionate impulses, when deliberately manipulated in this way.
But if the begging robot was also, at the same time, very, very annoying... Jar Jar Binks annoying... then the test would get a lot more interesting.
Reminds me of the Jack Handey saying about trees:
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?
We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
As my post above (written simultaneously with yours) indicates, they did know.
Also, you could test for the effects of gravity by turning it upside-down. If the mirror was still the right shape, then gravity is not an issue.
Ah, grasshopper. You fall for the very reasonable assumption that the Hubble was flown with an incorrectly figured mirror because no one on the ground could test it properly and find out that this was the case.
That isn't what happened.
When the mis-figuring was discovered by NASA, in orbit, I too was stunned. How could the engineers have relied on just one test to verify it?
They didn't.
The mirror was over-budget, and behind schedule, and management at Perkin-Elmer wanted to ship it. The mis-assembled instrument was the contractually agreed method of mirror acceptance, and the one used in the figuring process. When engineers found after the figuring that simple tests showed that it was incorrect, P-E management didn't care, and didn't tell NASA.
There were people at P-E who knew perfectly well that the mirror would not work. But hey, the managers probably got bonuses when the mirror left the facility.
It is simply that he made a false claim - that there were huge abandoned fields of turbines left to rust - which he is now trying to walk back without admitting the attempted deception.
Older turbines are being replace by newer ones that are more efficient (and profitable), the fields are not abandoned, their output is actually increasing with the new turbines, and the older turbines are not being "left to rust", they are being removed.
There were two small wind farms on Hawaii, that were built in the late 1980s that did deteriorate due to lack of maintenance by their owner/operators: the Kamaoa Wind Farm with 9.3 MW capacity, and the Lalamilo Wind Farm of only 2.3 MW, and which were shut down, dismantled and removed between 2006 and 2010. Meanwhile much bigger, modern wind farms have replaced them, in many cases at almost the same location (only a couple of kilometers farther away). For example the Pakini Nui Wind Farm of 21 MW is only 2.4 km from the old Kamaoa Wind Farm.
But those 11.6 MW of old small late 1980s era turbines have been collectively replaced by 206 MW of capacity, with 27.3 MW currently being added (which includes putting 3.3 MW of new turbines at that old Lalamilo Wind Farm.
Pretty much the same as any other new power system that is deployed as a pilot project, then eventually shut down and replaced by more modern versions.
But never fear, the next time wind power comes up SuperKendall will be making this claim of the fantasy of huge abandoned wind farms left to rust again, even as at all of the locations he claims have been abandoned continue to expand their wind power production with new modern turbines.
How can you possible say this is B.S.?
We already have huge fields of dead rusting wind turbines in California, and the south of Hawaii. Too expensive to remove so they just sit there, aging....
Given this is ALREADY A PROBLEM...
BECAUSE IT IS B.S.
Those huge fields of dead rusting wind turbines in California, and the south of Hawaii don't exist - or rather they only exist in the propaganda of the more unhinged climate deniers/fossil fuel shills who don't just distort the facts, they simply make stuff up.
I notice that when you repeat this B.S. you never provide links to your "alternative facts".
Note here is a lengthy in-depth discussion of the origins of this lie. It started with a climate denier doing the old distorted facts game - pointing out initially a large number of turbines were installed at the fields in California and Hawaii - but that there many fewer now. But omitting the correct explanation that it was because they were replaced by fewer, much larger, more efficient turbines. And no, the old ones are not just left there, they are removed over time. The actual percentage of non-operating turbines at any given time is about 2%. The fantasy version where there are dead fields (to say nothing of huge dead fields) is the result of climate deniers taking the original BS claim, and extrapolating from it in their imaginations, then posting it as if it was a fact.
I drive through two of the three California fields frequently, watched them go up and evolve, and they are impressive with the huge new towers spinning slowly, but producing far more power than the old ones - which have disappeared. Fields of abandoned turbines are nowhere to be seen. But who should I believe, citation-free climate denier rants or my own lyin' eyes?
Naturally you are using low-tech high polluting old methods of processing being a hobbyist. And millions of small scale miners in the Third World do the same. And of course the products of bad mining practices of a century ago are not going away, and will continue to require management.
But pollution is not a necessary result of properly regulated industrial scale modern operations.
In its final days of operation (the mine closed in 2000) the main problem with the water discharge from the Homestake Mine (second largest in world history) was that it was hot, having been removed from deep in the Earth where temperatures are high. This required cooling in a reservoir before it could be safely discharged, chemical treatment had removed chemical contaminants fairly easily.
The most recent developments in gold extraction is the use of bioleaching - chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfide to break down the ore and release gold particles. This method is cheaper than using cyanide, and can be used with the lowest grades of ore.
Wrong. The US is the third largest producer of raw steel in the world, 88 million tons last year.
Aside from the U.S. being in 2017 the fourth largest producer of raw steel, not third, behind China, Japan, and India, you should be made aware of the fact that, exactly as rsivergun said, the U.S. produced only 22 million tons of pig iron in 2017, the remainder of the 82 million tons of raw steel produced (73%) was remelted scrap. So about three quarters of U.S. steel is from scrap, not from iron ore.
And the U.S. produces only 4.8% of the world's steel, and only 1.7% of the its pig iron! China makes more than ten times as much steel, and thirty two times as much pig iron, as the U.S. So in terms of the world market - the U.S. really doesn't produce steel anymore. The U.S. high point in producing steel from ore (rather than just remelting existing steel) was 1973 when it produced 92 million tons, more than four times as much.
See this World Steel Association document. Also the USGS spreadsheets are excellent.
Pirates are found in waters all around the world.
Any documentation comes from 2nd century, and is very obviously tainted -- either comes from Christians themselves or is a copy of their works. If a preacher leading a popular movement of anything of the scale postulated in the Bible happened, it would be mentioned in secular sources, which have quite detailed records of those times. Yet, any such mentions are conspicuously absent.
Convincing forgery is tricky to do. Most would be scribe-forgers altering documents they copy to insert things they would like to be there rarely, if ever, sophisticated at who do construct forged passages that would state out from sophisticated textual analysis (consideration of context and textual flow, writing style, word choice, etc.). So modern scholars have a pretty good handle on when passages in ancient texts by one author are altered by insertions of others.
We have Antiquities of the Jews written by the Jewish historian Josephus about 60 years after the death of Jesus, i.e. written in the First (not Second) Century. There are two passages in this that refer to Jesus that do appear and seem to be originally authentic references from Josephus's hand. They have been altered by Christian scribes to make them more affirmative of Christian claims, but do not appear to be wholesale fabrications inserted later. On the bare question of Jesus's existence the mere fact that any mentions would appear in Josephus's writing supports the historical existence of Jesus.
This reference meets the demands you make for there to be external surviving references of Jesus's existence. So they are "conspicuously absent" only if you ignore the references that do indeed exist.
Also, you have a very exaggerated sense for how detailed and thorough the surviving records about the First Century Roman Empire really are, and accounts of happenings in the provinces are nearly non-existent. We did not have a single contemporary piece of evidence of the existence of Pontius Pilate who ruled Judea for 10 years under his name appeared on an inscription found in 1963. Before that the only evidence of his existence were Christian literature and three mentions in non-Christian sources (Josephus was one). There many important Roman documents from that era we know of that have been entirely lost. One example: the last Testament of Augustus Caesar, we did not have a single copy of until fragments of it inscribed on plaques were found in Turkey about 100 years ago.
On the other hand, there was a lot of religious kooks (this particular thing hasn't changed...), thus it's possible the story has some basis in truth, but has been mangled beyond recognition.
So, it's like that old Russian joke: "Did you hear that in Moscow they give Volga cars for free?" "Sure, they do, you just got three details wrong. First, not in Moscow but in Leningrad. Second, not Volga cars but Zavmash bikes. Third, they don't give but take away.". Thus, Jesus might indeed have existed, save for some little details...
All this is absolutely true. We do not have any reliable accounts of really anything about Jesus and in keeping with what one expects from oral accounts, the later things were written down the more extravagant and fanciful (or imaginative) they become. But if we restrict the question to the most basic one - whether there was such a person as Jesus - then we have pretty good evident that it is yes.
The earliest evidence is best, and that would be the authentic letters of Paul (there are fake ones in the New Testament also) which were written within 20 years of the death of Jesus by a man who had become an adherent within 10 years of his death, and knew several people who had followed Jesus and knew Jesus personally including his brother James (who is also mentioned in Josephus). This documentation at least to existence is as good or better than most people we know of from ancient times who who were not leading members of society or else authors themselves. It is t
I don't know why people would vote down such a devoted follower of Thor.
Its a bit odd/over reaching to be put into legislation. But so is the CDC studying gun related injuries. Do they also study vehicle collisions, lawn mower accidents, or people being crushed to death by vending machines?
As a matter of fact they do. Cause of accidental death is absolutely an area of study.
?
The Army used to have an air force too.
They still do. They only fly helicopters, but yeah aircraft.
Sorry. Still racist. You lose.
"Stronger" is a very poor term to use. Adaptation is dependent on the local environment and ecology. Often the invasive species has simply escaped the predators or diseases that keep them in check back home. A plant that takes over a new environment from native species that have local pathogens to contend with because it arrived without its native pathogens is not "stronger" it is just lucky.
It is true that the term did not exist until the 20th Century, but Darwin actually formulated the concept, and the rabbit invasion of Australia that occurred soon after 24 wild rabbits were released there in 1859 attracted a lot of attention.
Of course the rats were not introduced intentionally. Neither were tumbleweeds which came from Ukraine (probably in wheat seed shipments) and were first recorded in the U.S. in 1877. Nor the various invasive ant species (fire ants, crazy yellow ants, etc.) plaguing many parts of the world. Simply having people travel about without careful decontamination of belongings has created a lot of invasive introductions.
Indeed, there is a case of a woman eating 1.5 kg of brodifacoum bait, and she survived. The treatment for brodifacoum poisoning is simply taking vitamin K. The poisoning effect is due to shutting down vitamin K synthesis, so simply taking vitamin K (which your body is not making) is a completely effective treatment.
It is entirely funded by its members
Not according to this article. More than half of its money comes from the gun industry. And then there are all those foreign contributions, including Russian sources.
Trump has damaged America's credibility, but honestly, we're largely trading on Trumps credibility right now, not "America's"; so when Trump goes, the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal -- provided they do, a do so quickly the long term damage should be small -- the chaos will belong to "Trump" not so much to "America"; especially if America is seen struggling to contain Trump, which it is; and things go back to normal when he's gone.
Umm... no. Trump has sucked the entire Republican Party into supporting his constant lying and (as the revelation today of Putin's buddy Viktor Vekselberg paying half a million into Trump's slush fund to silence women prior to the election) proven collusion with an enemy state. They are working hard to protect him in every way they can, an entire two generations of Republican politicians, from the oldest to the youngest.
Other nations will not believe that any Republican administration can be trusted for a few decades at least, until a new generation (or two) has replaced the current ones. So believing things will "go back to normal" after Trump requires one to believe that other nations will assume, with high confidence, that no Republican will again control Congress or the White House for that whole span of time.
Several. Yeah. You know very few, and very little.
The Late Great Planet Earth predicted in 1970 that the Apocalypse would occur within one generation of the founding of the State of Israel (and thus by 1988 by the reckoning of its author Hal Lindsay). It sold 28 million copies by 1990, and millions who read it believed Lindsay's every word (including my grandmother at whose home I read the book myself). She marveled at the fact that she was living at the "end of days".