just a thought guys, not every question needs to be given CPR, you don't have to save them all. Not this particular case, but I've seen attempted heroic edits on several posts form n00bs of varying degrees of sincerity. Sometimes yah gotta know when to fold em.

@fredsbend pure Gallium melts at 29.8 C under normal conditions (1atm). That's awful close to room temp, and normal operating temps for x86 CPUs is ~30C

@waxeagle Come to think of that, you could probably melt gallium with your armpits.

@El'endiaStarman pretty much, body heat is hot enough

@waxeagle Maybe a meta post on this ...

@El'endiaStarman Maybe @TRiG could straighten us out. I thought I read somewhere he is trained in Chemistry.

@fredsbend ...not a bad idea, actually.

@fredsbend Does three classes in college chemistry and a passed AP test count? :P

Body temperature is 37C, so, yeah, you could melt Gallium in your armpits. Not sure I'd want it leaching into my lymph nodes though...

@AffableGeek The paper that I was talking about earlier mentions that gallium actually appears to have some antiseptic properties. So... :P

Ah.. got me then...

@AffableGeek Would you put hand sanitizer in your armpits? :P

I might put my hands in my armpits, but not much else

In general, if I can avoid putting things in my body, I do.

Except Doritos. I can't seem to avoid putting those in my body, sadly...

@AffableGeek For me, the #1 thing that goes in my body is milk. And air.

Push a spear into my side and milk and blood will flow out.

@AffableGeek What about deodorant? Or are you one of those stinky kind of guys?

@El'endiaStarman It sure does. I will just take your word for it. Last time I studied chem was 2008.

@fredsbend Hehe, no problem.

@fredsbend As a general rule, an alloy (or any other mixture) has a lowing melting point than either of its component parts. Saltwater has a lower melting point than pure water, which is why saltwater is used in the coolant pipes under ice rinks.

@fredsbend <sniffs arms>

@AffableGeek I hope you didn't turn green in the face like George in the Jungle did...

@TRiG [smacks forehead] Of course. Ions and particles lower melting and boiling points.

@TRiG That makes sense now that someone is saying it. Thanks.

and the more ions in the mix the more it lowers the melting point. That's why we use Calcium Carbonate instead of salt where it's colder

Mod notice: To whoever keeps flagging any comment that metions anything about Catholisism in an other than positive light as "offensive", please stop. We have to have thicker skin than that around here. Please reserve that flag for things that were indended to offend. If the comment serves no purpose, at most please flag as "off topic / not constructive".

@Caleb I did a tour of the Vatican once. Before we went in, the guide asked whether any of the people on the tour were practicing Catholics. A few put up their hands. "Well then," she said, "I'll try to be nice."

@fredsbend I'm going to have to scan back through the conversation to find out what this is relevant to.

@TRiG El said they are using molten metal in cooling in computers these days. I said most metals melt too hot, and the ones that don't don't absorb heat as well so its a wash. Then he said something else, now I'm forgetting what's going on, and at least I learned something ... I think.

Oh yeah. Something about lowering melting point with negative pressure, then he said something about altering properties with alloys.

@fredsbend Some computers. The great majority still use heat sinks. Some use water cooling, and fewer still actually use liquid metal cooling.

In other news, Airman Higgs has come out and said it directly.

@TRiG Ha, yes.

Their relationship will no doubt be...*dynamite*.

@El'endiaStarman She got her wish to see him fight, anyway.

@TRiG And she's fighting with him!

@El'endiaStarman In both senses of that phrase.

@TRiG [laughs] Yeah, didn't notice the double meaning when I wrote it.

> Popes are gonna pope

@StackExchange When I voted on this I got a red pop-up:

Am I the only one?

@JonEricson Meta Programmers is giving me,

> We are currently offline for maintenance

Could be related.

@JonEricson Back again now. Try refreshing the page and trying again.

@JonEricson I literally clicked on that x.

@TRiG Oddly, my vote seems to have gone through.

@JonEricson shrug Ours not to reason why ....

@El'endiaStarman Excellent. I will remember that...

@TRiG ...ours is but to refresh the page and see that the votes didn't register.

@El'endiaStarman And ... TRiG will say that the social contract of marriage varies from place to place, time to time, and society to society; but rarely (if ever) has it been exclusively about children. And, indeed, since the development of marriage for love (which I've heard fairly convincing arguments derives partly or largely from the Puritans), it has less and less to do with children.

@El'endiaStarman And certainly I'm not aware of any definition of marriage which actually depends on children.

@El'endiaStarman Impressive. Would be better were it based on the novel, not the films.

@Caleb That was probably me. I don't know where the comment is now, but saying that "nobody likes the pope except Catholics" isn't appropriate for this site. The flag says "rude and offensive". I'm not offended, but it is pretty rude to speak negatively of someone on behalf of everyone who isn't Catholic.

@fredsbend The fossil record is not the only (or the strongest) evidence for evolution. There's plenty of good evidence from genetic studies, molecular biology, and many other places.

@TRiG What is important about marriage for you?

@Alypius For me? I dunno. It's not something I want for myself. But I don't think it's your place to make that decision for me.

@TRiG You see marriage as important in some way. You say "it's not about children", for example. What do you take it to be about?

@Alypius It gets complicated. Each individual married couple will have their own reasons for choosing to marry, and their own answers about what marriage means for them (and the couple themselves won't necessarily agree on everything). But that is not to say that a broader perspective is meaningless. Marriage means something to society too. But that meaning is somewhat nebulous: diffuse and hard to pin down.

(And it'll change over time, of course.)

So you think that marriage is an arbitrary union, defined by the people involved?

But I'm pretty sure that no society (which is to say, very few people), would mention children as their foremost answer to the question of what marriage means.

@Alypius No. That's not what I said.

@TRiG I and 1.2 billion Catholics beg to differ. It's not so obvious now, with contraception and all that rubbish, but not that many years ago if you got married, you consummated, and had children and a family.

@waxeagle Science education is all lies to children. (So's religion, of course.)

@TRiG It's not clear to me where you draw the line, though. You say "their own reasons". Are there limits?

@Alypius People have their own reasons for getting married. Those will vary. But they'll vary within a spectrum, and some reasons will be more common than others in certain societies. So while the reasons are extremely variable, we don't need to throw our hands up in the air and say that a broader perspective is impossible.

People get married for their own reasons, and it is not my place to police those reasons.

It is definitely true that some people live together for a period, and then get married because of pregnancy. So yes, there's some form of causal relationship between children and marriage.

@TRiG What is the spectrum? You say "people can have (I read: come up with) their own reasons" and say it's constrained in some way, but I don't see what your constraints are.

@Alypius I suspect we're talking at cross purposes.

More importantly, what's the point of getting married? You can have reasons to be with someone, but why is "Marriage" the goal?

People can get married because the giant purple bunny at the end of the bed told them to. People can get married for all sorts of reasons. Can. But don't, as a general rule.

As a general rule, there are certain reasons why people get married. Those reasons are not arbitrary, but are socially conditioned.

The precise reasons will vary from person to person and from situation to situation, but across a society, patterns and commonalities will exist (along with a few outliers, who listen to their bunnies).

Sure. Why marriage? What is special about the title of married?

Recognition? Greater financial security?

As such, it makes sense to talk about a social understanding of what marriage means (even if the precise definition is impossible to pin down).

@Alypius Yes. Among other things (link to my blog).

@TRiG Ok. What are people being recognized for? For falling in amorous love with another person?

@TRiG If they recognized love, they recognized love aimed at producing children. That's part of why consummation, permanence, and stability are vital components of marriage.

@Alypius why exactly does a loving marriage have to produce children? Are people who can't or don't somehow lesser beings?

@Alypius vital components? Try "commonly understood elements". Definitions are slippery anyway, and societal definitions of cultural concepts are very slippery indeed.

@waxeagle Why would they be lesser beings? If two males cannot produce a child, they are not lesser beings, they are simply both males.

@Alypius what about two seniors who decide to get married? What about a couple who desperately wants kids that can't have them? What about those of us who choose to stop at a couple of kids and not have 10?

@Alypius I sort of want to ask a question about two males who can produce a child, but I'm a bit worried about the can of transphobic worms this might open.

@TRiG The definitions are slippery when you allow for any definition.

@TRiG legit question though. If the Catholics are going to argue that the sole purpose of marriage is to produce children then they have no argument against that...

except the "then one isn't really a man" argument which...meh

@Alypius You didn't ask me what I think marriage ought to be, or what marriage means to me. You asked me what marriage means to society. And that's complicated. Don't go trying to pen it into a little neat and tidy definition with "vital components". That won't work; not if you're interested in looking at the world as it actually is.

@waxeagle It's difficult (for me) to imagine how a homosexual couple could have an intention to have kids with each other, knowing that it is in principle impossible.

@Alypius ignore that for a moment and include only het marriages with no intent at children.

@Alypius This in principle thing. I don't get it. I don't see the relevance.

or no possibility (through age, known genetic incompatibility, etc)

@TRiG It's complicated, but not to the point of what you suggest. If in fact people "recognized" marriage in the way you say, where were the marriages between homosexuals before this age? Nowhere, but there have been plenty of groups that permitted homosexuality.

@waxeagle If you do not intend to be open to children, you should not be getting married. Saying "I wish we were of the opposite gender" does not qualify (I know that homosexuals don't say this, but that's my point).

@Alypius but the catholic church marries elderly couples doesn't it?

@waxeagle Elderly couples are open to having children.

Just want to throw out there that it seems obvious that Eve was not made so Adam could procreate. Eve was made for Adam to have a companion.

@Alypius Hang on. Are we using a neat and tidy definition of marriage again? If so, what is it? ("If you do not intend to be open to children, you should not be getting married," indeed? Sez who?) If you're going to ask about what marriage means to our society, and try to hammer out what that means, then you shouldn't suddenly switch horses in midstream and start talking about what marriage means to your church, as if that's the same thing.

@fredsbend Not a companion, a helper. But the commandment to be fruitful came directly after this happened, so we can assume a connection.

@TRiG What the Church means is what society means; I see no distinction between the two. Obviously, you disagree, but I have no idea on what basis, since you're avoiding giving any explanation of what marriage could be except a label applied to people on the basis of their own views of what marriage is... or something of that nature.

@Alypius I'm being vague because it is vague. Or, rather, individual understandings vary, so societal understanding is vague.

@TRiG Those things really are secondary to the fossil record and dating. If we could definitively prove the Earth was under 1M years Evolution Theory of Origin falls apart. Same if we could prove definitively that there are no link species. The others you mention are new sciences that frankly we know very little about and do not clearly support Evolution so much as do not contradict it.

@fredsbend You're wrong.

;)

@TRiG lol

They do actually provide a great deal of support for evolution.

nuh-uh

@fredsbend I'm saying this mainly on the basis of The Greatest Show on Earth, which provides a great deal of explanation of the scientific evidence and reasoning in this area.

@TRiG support for evolution not Evolution. The first is science the second is a theory on origins based on that science. A petri dish cannot prove Evolution. Is that a book?

@TRiG If someone says "my understanding of marriage is that it's for financial security", then I understand that this person isn't talking about what marriage is, but what sort of effects they enjoy. Two people are to be considered married when... What? What are the conditions?

@Alypius I'm not entirely sure, but having children certainly isn't a necessary condition, nor even is wanting children. You may say that you see no distinction between the societal and church definitions of marriage, but that certainly is one. Couples who are childless by choice are generally considered by society not to have invalidated their marriages by that choice.

@TRiG Sure, if you have a child, this does not constitute marriage.

@Alypius And vice versa, if you do not want children, this does not invalidate a marriage.

This is one of the very clearest distinctions between society's understanding of marriage and your church's.

So stop saying the two understandings are the same. They very clearly aren't.

@Alypius "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone.'" Then He took Adam though a process that made him realize he needs a companion (someone like him that he can spend time [eternity] with); then He made Eve. Then he told the two of them that the Earth belongs to all of humanity (that's the "fill the earth and subdue it" part). I realize that is from Gen 1 but it is clear which parts happened before that (the double account of the creation of Man).

Yes, procreation is an important part of marriage, to the Christian, however, it is a small part and should not dwarf the real intention: relationship, closeness, love, and togetherness.

I have heard, and I take this opinion my self, that marriage, the man and the woman, with God, mirrors the Trinity. The man is like Christ and the woman is like the Church (which the Holy Spirit move through) and God is still God.

@TRiG That's not a vice-versa. Having kids is not the same as wanting kids. And "not wanting kids" is not quite the same as "not being open to kids", though it's close.

Further, If subdue the Earth meant have lots of babies to fill the Earth up with people we need to ask when are we supposed to get there? Over 7 BILLION now. I would say we have filled pretty darn good.

@fredsbend Perhaps go to BH and ask if Eve was a companion or a helper, according to the original language. My Bible says "helper". I see no problem with that, because the note on my Bible also reminds me that God is a helper.

@Alypius I would argue that helper and companion are nearly the same, and in this context they are. Helper is closer to companion than it is to baby maker. If the stressed intention of marriage is procreation, as you seem to be saying, then the woman is a baby maker first. That makes her sound like a church instead of the Church to me.

@TRiG If you want to say that homosexuals should marry, I should be able to ask you if you have some form of description of what marriage consists in that goes beyond "it's whatever individuals (or society?) defines it to be". If you pass off the meaning of the words you use to someone else, what is your meaning in the words you use? Nothing.

@fredsbend The man and the woman are both baby makers. You seem to assume that if someone would be a "baby maker", it would be the woman, which is incorrect.

@Alypius Yes mine says helper too. “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” First, it clarifies why a helper might be needed. Adam was plenty able to do his duties without her. I say that the implication is that Adam would enjoy them more if he could share them with someone. An ox can pull a cart, but Eve is good to look at and responds well to conversation.

Nothing to do with 'help with work'

@Alypius (a) If I don't pass off the meaning of the words I use to someone else, I become Humpty Dumpty, and don't get much actual communication done. (b) Once again, I remind you that you didn't ask what marriage meant to me; you asked me what it meant to society. I was doing my best to answer the question you posed. (c) Arguments in favour of marriage equality are made in the blog post I linked above. I can summarize them here if you like.

Well, actually (*rescans conversation*), you did ask why marriage was important to me, but you didn't ask what it meant to me.

@Alypius Don't play dumb. No one, except the very ignorant, would say that a man does not play a vital role in 'baby making'. Throughout history, women have been treated as 'baby makers' meaning they only serve the purpose of bearing children. That thought was very common until recently and taking the charge 'be fruitful' as weightier than 'the woman is your companion' propagated it.

@TRiG I'm not asking you to have a definition of marriage I agree with, I'm asking you to have one in the first place. You are making a claim. Society, government, whatever, should allow marriage for homosexuals. You used a word there. "Marriage". You must mean something by it.

@Alypius Sorry. Busyish. And not really up to this right now.

@fredsbend I don't think that's accurate history, but it doesn't matter. The problem isn't with the commandment to be fruitful, it's with people thinking that it was directed to the woman, which is what you seem to think. But it wasn't: "God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply;"

@TRiG No problem. I don't mean to press you.

@fredsbend If you don't think that though, then there's no disagreement.

@Alypius I seem to think that? I was saying that your argument that marriage is for procreation seems to say that. I do not think that at all. In fact, I thought I was arguing against it. But I did make an accurate description of history. Women couldn't even vote until the 20th century (I realize there are other arguments here). In most ancient cultures a woman was purchased from her father. Fiddler on the roof comes to mind concerning this issue.

@Alypius Nah. I actually enjoy getting into debates a lot of the time. (And this is a fairly good one. It's sufficiently distant that it's not too emotionally wearing, and sufficiently close that I don't feel I'm trampling all over someone else's personal issues to get my arguing kicks. I'm gay, but single, and don't really want to marry anyway.) I'm just a bit tired at the moment, and have a long list of things to do, so I'll draw a line under it here.

@fredsbend My argument for marriage does not say that the woman is for making babies. It says that humanity is "for" making babies. Some people don't make babies. That's fine. But the people that open themselves up to making babies together get "special treatment", legal support, and recognition. It's not meaningful to recognize any other sort of relationship as "marriage".

Incidentally, I believe that the use of contraception has similar negative effects.

@Alypius Religiously speaking. Yes. This is why I really don't argue gay marriage, nor care. I think marriage is religious and should stay that way. The government should just but out. I'm one of those crazy libertarians. In my opinion, what marriage means to me as a Christian cannot make sense to a non-Christian. It is based on Christ and the Church. You understand because you are Christian. You know Christ. But you cannot expect non-Christians to understand.

@Alypius Contraception what? Devalues women? marriage? sex? Confused.

St Peter's Square and the march of the content creator:

instagram.com/p/W2BuMLQLRB

@TRiG Yep. :P