Yep.

My guess haveing delt with the process. Moving to a green card process supported by marriage. Meant her student visas no longer applied. Only being married for 1 year. As this is why such claims are temp to begin. Means she may be deported well before her student plans are complete.

Even before the current insanity. Things like that were risky.

Exactly. But if we are honest. Canada joining the EU with no land border even close. Would be such a huge change in how it needs to work Vs other members.

It is much more likely to negotiate an EEA like arangment. As customs etc would face huge complications with the US being their largest trading partner.

Just about everything would need to be up for debate for such a deal to be practical on Canada’s part.

Just things like electrical trade would be questionable. Localisation meant almost all other members were using 220v like systems before unification. Food standards make EU / north American trade in many products complex. So either way any merge is going to be long and complex. So differences will be needed,

After 2 180s you are pointing the right way or never were.

Given at some point trump was not in charge. Seems another angle is needed for them all to be idiotic.

They are idiotic just not 180s

So can any nation with its own currency. Its has a cost in the value of the currency though.

Thanks.

Also thanks for pointing out I mixed genes and traits. Was a video I saw so me missing it makes perfect sense.

Genuine question. How many genes were different in the original dir wolf?

Also elsewhere said 20 genes were changed. But I’ve no reason to consider that source better then yours.

Because they only qremember 3 points about the show.

Dire wolves where in it,

And the 2 on Khaleesi.

Actually when you discuse the 187th century. You are talking about pre revisionist science. IE before the definition of the scientific method.

And all the articles you shared were dated 1990s to late 2010s so no you were in no way talking about past views. But instead questioning hypothesis and reviews that has so far failed to form scientific theories on the subject.

Nearly all of these present hypotheses. As of this moment there is no clearly accepted theoretical model on how animals or human consciousness works. Just lots of open to debate hypotheses. Because for all we understand about neurons and processing of the mind. Much of the hypotheses are not truly testable. Just collections of experiments and ideas the scientific community is unable to form clear understanding and agreement on.

If you read this collection and say science believes animals feel no pain you are either misinformed or lieing. These are just a collection of opinions and experiments that fail to form clear conclusions as of yet. Because the simple fact is the mind is still very unknown for both humans and animals.

You sent articles that propose an hypothesis not a tested theory. Hence they are just some scientists proposing as of yet unfounded ideas. They are not valid theories until both tested and reviewed by independent groups.

Hence my who,e point that modern media likes to misrepresent science.

The political direction of other nations. Honestly it is what all wealthy nations use aid for.

Ask any vet about that and honestly nope that is not what science thinks. But some scientists do propose other explanations for events that how science works.

Technically you don’t feel pain. Your body sends signals to your brain and muscles. Your muscles react to those signals. And your brain interprets them in a way that results in you changing actions. IE your mind creates pain you don’t feel it.

The destination seems non existant in the mind of yourself with your hand on a hotplate. But it is a scientifically accurate one. One that must be considered when considering how pain killerssuch as opiates work.

And it is this gap in human vs scientific language that media loves to sell articles on.

Team the medias indicators that science has just discovered it. Is crap. Its more science has just proved or documented something ot has suspected for a long while.

Anyone with a dog knows they have such ideas and thoughts. But recognising it via anecdotal evidence and actually proving it in a way that stands up to challenge are 2 very different things.

Unfortunately modern media really dose not benifit fro pointing that out.

Homeless are likely cheaper.

Not to mention he can likely claim a tax break for charity donations to them.

So in other words you are saying. Any nation with nukes has a right to walk in and take over any non nuke nation. And those nations have no right or duty to defend their borders.

Hong kong will pay £100k to kidnap people.

No other way to interpret this.

Agreed.

As I say, it’s just the idea of 1.5m can’t be wrong that is wrong. More so coming from a newspaper that depends on the success of marketing for its revenue.

Approx 2% of a population can definitely be sold a crock of shit if the marketing is good. Just look at the numbers who voted Trump in the US or Reform in the UK.

Honestly, if solar Balconies produced 30% of the nations’ electricity, then it would be very impressive.

But while Germany producing 54% clean energy is bloody impressive. Honestly, 30% is likely to be solar as a whole, not just balcony solar.

The number of locations where the low sun would be inline to balconies is limited. Due to urban conditions. Mainly only higher flats over the average city line and rural areas.

And while in those higher or rural flats. The low sun may shine the correct way 30% of the day (if the panels can tilt). For that to generate 30% of the flats use over a whole year. Would take a pretty big balcony. The best panels available commercially nowadays are <300w per m2. So most balconies would have 600 to 1200w max. The whole side of the flat would likely be 4x to 6x times that.

I’d guess it’s still worth doing. (def the whole side of the building thing) Mainly because the panels are so freaking cheap atm. It’s the cost of bats and volt/current/charge management that would be the greatest cost part. But for most users. 30% from balcony alone is not realistic.

Really great day. When you can screw yourself.

;>

Grins, actually My MPPT cost more than the panels. £70 for each panel plus £33 shipping the pair. The 2 30a MPPTs £90 each.

But when fitting to a house it’s likely to be mounting by a pro that is the bigger cost. So yeah, way easier to replace the MPPTs etc then climb on a roof.

Fortunately, with a narrow boat a can do it all myself with just the risk of wet feet ;)

Erm as he is talking about what the panel providers are willing to warrantee. Where else would you expect to see it.

Give me a week and I can go get the warrantee paperwork for my panels. But I’m net heading out to them till after Xmas. But it’s 20 years at something like 85% of original performance.

If you are expecting to see test data. Well, honestly, other than manufacturers. The older technologies really were not as reliable. The same manufacturing techniques that have reduced the price of panels over the last few years. Are the reason UV damage etc will take longer to effect them. Hence, the long warrantees. 70-90s panels used to suffer from UV fogging over the diodes, so did not expect to last as long. But even they tended to last about 10 years.

As I pointed out else where. It is not the panels that are likely to fail in 6 years. (unless damaged) But the electronics adjusting to battery or AC voltages for use. They tend to come with much shorter warrantees. But if fitted well, are also much easier to replace.