Leaderboard

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-doesnt-read-much-being-president-probably-wouldnt-change-that/2016/07/17/d2ddf2bc-4932-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html?utm_term=.2f67b1aa8328 According to this article, the only thing he reads are pieces about himself. He hates experts because they "can't see the forest for the trees", and they often go against his common sense. He claims knowledge in general distracts from his ability to shoot from the hip, that knowing things ahead of time is a bad for his decision-making process. He is the exact opposite of what I think an intelligent, rational, compassionate human should be. So I also don't believe this story. I also don't appreciate all the suggestive BS from the OP about what was on Trump's mind, guessing at his motives. I think Trump is the next Hitler for sure, but this is a science discussion site, and Trump is hardly a mastermind who leaves little evidence in his wake. Can we stop with the guesswork, and argue from what we know instead of using conspiracy and trying to psychoanalyze responses?

Thank you. I was able to source a small condenser and will try to redistill. No vacuum apparatus available here but I have learned more about proper storage. The price on reagents is going up so fast it is wise to have some ability to purify the old stuff when practical. I appreciate your response. At least I know that it is not that unusual for this molecule to darken. Maillard chemistry is very interesting. The other suspect (in my mind) was the bottle of mercaptoethanol that sat next to it for years. I suppose R-NH2 is the stronger nucleophile but I wonder if R-S(minus) might compete. I lurk the forum, really enjoy the high level of professionalism and openness.

I mean the theory of evolution by natural selection originally proposed by Wallace and Darwin and confirmed (and extended) by many experiments and observations since then. As you didn't define what you meant by "practical" we were left to come up with our own. I think that progress in science is very practical. Of course it is. And is also confirmation of that tree (many relationships are known from genetics, where there is little fossil evidence). Theories explain "facts" (evidence). In this case, the theory of evolution explains the genetic relationships. And therefore the genetic relationships are yet more evidence confirming the theory. That makes no sense at all. A theory doesn't rely on practical applications. It just has to successfully explain the evidence. We have no practical use for neutrinos, that doesn't make quantum theory a myth. Again, you may think that gaining knowledge of the world around us is a waste of time. Many of us think it is an admirably practical pursuit.

The photon does not keep track. You have to keep moving at a constant speed to "stay under" the photon you did shoot straight up. Which is just another way of saying what @swansont said above. If you turn or brake the photons does not track you and obviously the apple does not track you either. An attempt to use an analogy with your equipment from above. Do not attempt this IRL, you may crash -Ride the bicycle. -With one hand, throw an apple straight up. and catch it again. (no wind or wobbling) -With the other hand, point a laser pen straight up at the apple. (no wobbling) 1: Why should photons miss the apple? The above analogy does have limits; for instance that gravity affect light.

light behaves as follows: We start with sources A and B which have a relative motion relative of 0.5c to each other, have just met and each has emitted a pulse of light upwards relative to themselves. The top image show the moment of emission according to both A and B. The second image shows 1 sec later according to A. B has moved 0.5 light sec to the left. The pulse emitted by A (red sphere) is 1 light sec directly above A, and the Pulse emitted by B(blue sphere) is directly above B and one light sec from where it was emitted. (which puts its 0.866 light sec above B) The bottom image show 1 sec after emission according to B. A has moved 0.5 light sec to the right. The pulse emitted by B is 1 light sec directly above B, and the pulse emitted by A is directly above A and 1 light sec from where it was emitted (putting it 0.866 light sec above A)

When someone lies so brazenly and regularly as Trump there is no way to understand what they think. Even if they were to tell you it would most likely be a lie. Such behavior tempts speculation. It is a very difficult thing. Accurately pointing out the lies has done nothing to slow them from coming, disarm those you repeat them, or kept the liars out of power. I do not think Trump is a master mind but he does appear to have a firmer grasp of Sun Tzu's following quote than do those who oppose him: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle". Trump knows what he wants and who his opposition is. The GOP broadly knows those 2 things. I think the Progressive who what they want but are often clueless about who their opposition is. Progressives too often assume a correlation between being true and being embraced. Airbrush appears to be implying Trump is a pervert in the OP in addition to being a fan of Hitler. I think pervert (relative to common public standards) is true. The Hitler part to me seems far fetched but only because it involves reading.

Fixed. Not sure what happened.

Not me, since the only thing that's true is... Nope, I'm not playing...

That is an artificial distinction.

Not really. The limiting factor is the redox potential between terminal acceptor and donor. The potential energy does not change. Think of it that way. The energy you could obtain from dropping a single weight from 100 ft does not change whether you used one or two ladders to get there. Also think in terms of potential as the height. I.e. if you start with glucose and end with oxygen, you are much higher than if you started e.g. with lactate instead of glucose. Or if you ended with nitrate instead of oxygen. With hydrogen as an acceptor you have the even bigger issue that redox potential is at a level where respiration actually normally starts. I.e. think of hydrogen being basically the same height as the floor. Dropping anything from there will give no or negligible energy.

It's like this with many of our government programs and agencies. Our postal service could deliver more efficiently, securely, and cheaply if they were allowed to buy their own planes instead of being forced to use private carriers. The USPS could do a better job wiring funds than Western Union (they have offices in every zip code), but they aren't allowed. Capitalism is choking our country, no more so than in our healthcare.

So completely undercut the private health insurance system?

Transfer its funding to Medicare, drop the age limit, and you'll have bypassed the #1 obstacle to decent healthcare in the US, the medical insurance providers.

The lack of oxygen isn't the real problem with this idea. (your jet pack could be fitted with its own oxygenator supply. ) The real problem come from trying to climb upward at such a slow speed. If we put our target altitude at 300 km (187.5 mi) at 5 mph, it would take 37.5 hrs to climb to that altitude. Earth's gravity will not have fallen off by much (to about 91% of earth surface value), so your jet pack will have to be thrusting against nearly 1 g of gravity the whole time. So even if we use the 91% value for the whole trip, it would have to produce the same amount of energy as it would to accelerate itself up to 8.94 m/sec2 x 135000 sec = ~1207 km/sec. On the other hand, if you got up to a high enough speed while still near the surface of the Earth such that inertia alone (without an further firing of your engine) would lift to to 300 km, you would only have to accelerate up to 2.7 km/sec. And its even worse than that. If you accelerate quickly, you use up your fuel while you are still near the Earth. Fuel used up near the Earth is fuel you don't have to lift any higher. If you try to climb slowly, you have to lift more of your fuel to a higher altitude. But lifting fuel to burn later means burning more fuel now, which means that you needed even more fuel earlier to lift the fuel you are burning now... This compounds very quickly, and the amount of total fuel needed increases immensely Earth launched rockets have to compromise. They want to get up to speed at as low of an altitude as possible to reduce fuel requirements, but they can't get up to full speed too low in the atmosphere or they would burn up from air friction. Then there is the fact that it isn't enough to just get to 300 km above the Earth, in order to stay there, you have to be moving at least orbital speed, which is ~ 7.7 km/sec at that altitude.

Stop pretending that hospitals are like businesses. Hospitals are not hotels. You choose your hotel, but fate usually chooses your hospital. So a set of "league tables" for various measures of "care" (however you measure it) can't influence your decision. So all they do is- as you say, penalise those who already have the hardest jobs. Also, make very sure that your "key point indicators" are not driving the wrong behaviour. For example, if someone is measuring "waiting time" then hospitals will learn to "game" the system. If "waiting time" stops when they are seen by a nurse, the hospital will hire a nurse to look at patients and then walk away. Obviously, that's not what the medical profession wants, but it's what the "business" wants.

Vanholten, are you willing to answer my questions now? Or is your theory still secret?

If you mean like the movie, you are talking about an object that is in orbit around the Earth. From this image: Elysium is in what is typically known as a Low Earth Orbit (LEO). While is it hard to judge from just this picture ( I'm not sure if the film gives an orbital altitude), it can't be orbiting too much further out than the ISS is ( and certainly not anywhere near geosynchronous orbit distance.) Let's put it out at 500 km. At this altitude, it would orbit with a period of ~94 min 36 sec. if it orbited in the plane of the equator and in the same direction as the Earth, it would pass over the same point of the Earth's surface every 101 min 15 sec. There is only one place where an object could orbit between Earth and The Moon and maintain this relative position. This is the L1 Lagrange point which is ~58,000 km short of the Moon (the Moon is 384,000 km away). But even this point isn't entirely stable and something put there would need occasional correctional nudges to keep it from drifting away and into its own independent orbit around the Earth (There are two Lagrange points that are stable, L4 and L5, which are located 60 degrees ahead of and behind the Moon in it orbit. These are often mentioned as good places to put space colonies)

Many in here may not remember but back in 2009 a DHS intelligence assessment was leaked which included White Nationalist and right-wing extremists as a growing terrorist threat. Republicans feigned outrage. They labelled the then Sec. of DHS Janet Napolitano "Big sis" and publicly ridiculed her and the assessment. It lead to years on Napolitano being the focus of verbal attack by the right. Fast forward 10yrs and any number of the things from the assessment (linked above) have come to pass. The rise in White Nationalist groups and stock piling of weapons has lead to numerous homegrown terrorist attacks that have left far too many people dead. Conservative groups refusing to acknowledge this issue didn't start with the election of Donald Trump. Republicans have been providing cover for over a decade.

Oxidation by air is sufficient to get it to go brown. You get formation of aldehydes and then reactions like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction It's likely that the material is still fairly pure; the brown colour may be due to far less than 1% of impurity. And redistillation (under vacuum if you have that option) will probably clean it up

I've often wondered why no-one has tried to introduce cyanobacteria, not to Mars, but to Venus. A small amount, to see if they can survive, even as an experiment on Earth.. Then, after the introduction to Venus, evolve and start changing the atmospheric composition. Who knows, in a couple of million years, Venus might resemble an Edgar Rice Burrows novel

By what you would visually see, then yes, you would see events occurring faster at Andromeda. Though you couldn't actually travel at the speed of light, just close to it. The equation for this relationship is fo = fs sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)) Where fo is the observed frequency, fs is the source frequency, and c is the speed of light. Note that if you make v=c then you end up with fo = fs sqrt(2)/0) And the division by 0 is undefined. ( but since travel at the speed of light is not allowed, this never arises.) However, just because you are seeing events unfold more quickly at Andromeda, does not mean that you would conclude that they were unfolding faster. Once you account for the effect caused by the decreasing distance between you and Andromeda, you would conclude that events were actually unfolding slower at Andromeda. For example, if you were traveling at 0.99c, you would see events at Andromeda as happening 14 times faster, but would conclude that they were happening 7 times slower. The 7 times slower would be due to time dilation, while the 14 times faster you see is due to Relativistic Doppler effect, which is a combination of time dilation and the effect caused by the decreasing distance. Even this is only a part of the whole picture. In order to understand what happens over the whole trip from Earth to Andromeda according to both Earth and ship would involve delving more deeply into Special Relativity.

Cannabis withdrawal will not kill you yet you assert there is no scientific distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs. I'm not sure I follow.

I asked a sincere question and I’m here to learn. I assumed you being the forum chemistry expert you could lend a hand. And yes, since you’re the chemistry expert - it is your job John.

I would think it depends entirely on the type of drugs. I don't see a particular problem with legalizing 'soft' drugs like pot. Although legalizing pot while making tobacco products almost illegal seems counter-intuitive. But should I care, I don't smoke either ? Legalization of 'hard' drugs would turn an acute problem, where people die quickly from related crime and overdosing, into a chronic problem, where safe-injection sites and availability lead to ruined lives and ( most likely ) eventual death. And I shouldn't care because I don't do 'hard' drugs either. Problem is, I do care. A lot of people use drugs as a 'crutch', to escape from the unfortunate state of their lives. Much like alcoholics use booze. What may have started as a 'pleasurable' experience, becomes a 'crutch' as a coping mechanism. There is another 'crutch' that people use as a coping mechanism. And although it is legal, I don't see many advocates for religion here.

Nice jaunty basic answer SJ. +1 But soap doesn't only act on the oils. Soap is also a surfactant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfactant This lowers the significant surface tension of water, allowing the water to better mix with other substances, dirt, microbes, oils, skin particles etc. Some soaps also change the pH of the water, making it more alkaline. Old fashioned 'lye' soap has this property. The change in pH has a mild bactericidal action. Scrubbing was not specifically mentioned and will enhance washing, with or without soap. But much washing is carried out without scrubbing and cleaning activity will still take place even without scrubbing.

HIV was a project of developed countries against those of Africa and Asia, The intention of HIV developer was to make developing countries suffer from aids, and forgotten that one day the globe world will be interacting , and then spread HIV aid to creators , haha ,they become aware of this when HIV is uncontrollable phenomenon anymore, let us suffer all

"According to a 1990 Vanity Fair interview, Ivana Trump once told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that her husband, real-estate mogul Donald Trump, now a leading Republican presidential candidate, kept a book of Hitler's speeches near his bed. "Last April, perhaps in a surge of Czech nationalism, Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed ... Hitler's speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist," Marie Brenner wrote. ... Brenner added that Davis did acknowledge that he gave Trump a book about Hitler. "But it was 'My New Order,' Hitler's speeches, not 'Mein Kampf,'" Davis reportedly said. "I thought he would find it interesting. I am his friend, but I'm not Jewish." After Trump and Brenner changed topics, Trump returned to the subject and reportedly said, "If, I had these speeches, and I am not saying that I do, I would never read them." In the Vanity Fair article, Ivana Trump told a friend that her husband's cousin, John Walter "clicks his heels and says, 'Heil Hitler," when visiting Trump's office." https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-ex-wife-once-said-he-kept-a-book-of-hitlers-speeches-by-his-bed-2015-8 This is new to me. Did anyone else know about Trump's "Hitler Book"? Trump recently called himself a "nationalist." This is on the order of Trump's outrageous answer to Wendy Williams question "What do you have in common with Ivanka?" His answer "Well...I was going to say sex but I can't blah, blah, blah..." After Trump says "I was going to say sex, but I can't because" he mutters and you can't tell what he said after that. I think is was "I can't relate that to her." So SEX was a big thing on his mind when it came to his daughter. Interesting that Ivanka's response to his outrageous comment was to GIGGLE, like "Oh Daddy is joking again, hahaha." A normal response from her would be to ignore what he said and let the moment pass, and maybe even change the subject, as though what daddy just said was nonsense, NOT TRUE. Her giggle, IMHO, amounts to confirmation of his comment. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+on+wendy+williams+show+with+ivanka&&view=detail&mid=5C569CDBE9DDAB88BBC65C569CDBE9DDAB88BBC6&rvsmid=313CA659387BBCA6CFB3313CA659387BBCA6CFB3&FORM=VDQVAP