Raider5678

"Question: Find out the molar concentration of acetic acid (CH₃COOH) solution when 1.24 grams of acetic acid (CH₃COOH) dissolved in 155.0 ml solution?

 

 

 

 

 

Solution:

 

 

Yeah, this is copied, but it should help you a little. I DID NOT know ANY of this stuff, this is from the webpage.

http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bipartisan-law-requiring-enhanced-background-checks-syrian-refugees/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/senate-democrats-block-bill-restrict-syrian-refugees-entering-us/79063266/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-democrats-block-bill-to-halt-resettling-of-iraqi-syrian-refugees-in-u-s-1453325005

 

Thats them blocking laws. And number 3 sort of counteracts what they blocked before, so it's a little confusing. But that's politics for you, they talk and talk and never get anything done.

Is there even a way to calculate this? I mean you would have to account for the force that was put into the turkey, and to do that you need to know how far and how fast the turkey traveled right? I would assume that your using the average 2.5 cubic foot air bag from the driver's seat, which fills up in about 20 - 30 milliseconds. So let's say it took 25 milliseconds to fill up. The pressure inside the airbag would have been 5psi at most. Now you should know that it fills with nitrogen gas, not oxygen. So assuming the turkey didn't launch until it was at 5 psi (highly-unlikely). So it expands to 2.5 cubic feet in 25 milliseconds. So lets assume its a sphere, it moves 1.68 feet in 25 milliseconds, which is 6.72 feet per second, which means it's moving at 4.5 miles per hour( I may have made a math mistake there, I got 13 mph at first). So it's hitting the turkey at 4.5 mph, so considering newton's 2nd law, the counterforce is what is exerted on the table. Someone else do that math.

I could have answered this by looking at my dog. She whimpers, barks, moans, moves, cries, drools, snores, and pants, all in her sleep. I always wondered what she was dreaming about.....

Hi guys, I was wondering how fast the end of a giant pole starting at the center of earth would be if it was "x" miles long. Now I decided to try ang get this pole to the speed of light. This is assuming earth spins once every 24 hours, and that this pole would be able to withstand the centrifugal force. So assuming that light travels at 670,616,629 mph. Which means the circumference of the circle that would be drawn by the end of this pole would have to be 16,094,799,096 miles around. Which means the length of the pole would have to be (2.56×10 to the power of 9) miles long starting at the center of the earth. And if it was this long, then the exact end of it would be traveling at the speed of light. Did I do math wrong here? Obviously we couldn't build something the long, it would reach mars, probably MUCH farther. But just as a thought experiment, is this correct? I included a diagram below. Every - is the pole.

 

 

 

Sun Mercury Venus Earth---Mars--------------Jupiter----------------Saturn------- Uranus

 

Freakin long pole.

Considering nobody is posting their ideas, I know what I would build. I would build a giant pole the goes so far above earth, that the end is traveling at least 1/6 the speed of light.

From there I would use it to "sling-shot" space ships to where ever they need to go.

Hi guys, I read that if nasa had more money, they could get to mars twice as quick. Now I think they meant the long run, as in getting there in 20 years rather then 40, not the actual trip time (about 6 months with conventional rockets). Now I was wondering what you guys would build if you had ALL the money in the world. Now since this IS a thought experiment, there are somethings that you can ignore. Here are some of the rules for your "world" where you build whatever super thing.

 

1. It can't ignore the laws of anything.(physics, thermodynamics, etc.)

2. You have unlimited money to do what you need to do.

3. You have unlimited manpower.

4. You have unlimited time.

5. Anything you make must be something we could build today given these standards.

6. You only have materials you could get.

 

Now I don't know whether this is something thats not allowed or not, but I didn't read anything in the rules about it(unless I missed it). But if we make something team style, like we come up with something, then figure out problems with building it, etc, it would be great. I'm pretty sure something like that has like a 0.000000000001% chance of happening. Now to finish, what would you build? Be it an underwater city, a giant space ship, or a advanced microwave, I don't care. I just like seeing interesting ideas.

Trying to remain neutral and not trying to start an argument, may I just point out that this could be said about "non-conservatives" also? I mean, HARD evidence inside politics about who is to blame is almost always cherry picked to suit the person's needs. Let's say for example you brought up a study that shows how conservatives repeatedly stopped government laws from being passed that could help us alot. I could pull up ANOTHER study that shows the same thing, but that "non-conservatives" stopped those laws. In my opinion political debates usually never end up with people changing to the other party, which is a real shame. Try and use some logical reason here. I vote for whoever I think is a good candidate(technically, I'm too young to vote), regardless if their a conservative or not.

 

On a side note yes, usually the people blaming other people are the cause of the problem. But both parties are trashing each other currently, so who does the blame fall on?

Ok. Wow. So say 2 rays of light were to pass each other in the vaccum of space. From the point of view of one ray of light, the other is going a little less then c, or is it going half the speed of c? C = speed of light in vaccum.

I do have a few questions, since I won't have time to read this book. First off, how does potter know about something that hasen't been seen for at least one and a half THOUSAND years. That's a long time for information to be passed down from memory. My next question is why is human kind in immediate danger, and needs teleportation to be saved? Also, an "E-manual" seems highly unlikely for an ancient language. What does the e stand for? Can you point out some evidence presented inside the books that convinced you? Otherwise I'm thinking your just joking around, or promoting this book. I for one, require at least SOME evidence before I even consider something a possibility. After that I look for evidence that the given evidence doesn't match conventional science, so let's see potters evidence.

dictionary.com covenant:

 

Do you mean Table of Contents (TOC)?

That's what I figured, but i'm not sure. Ark of the covenant?

Hello again.

 

I have a question about why time slows down the faster your going, and why time will not let you go faster then light. Now my reason for this question is that Steven Hawkings says that if your on a vehicle, that's moving near the speed of light, and someone on board were to run towards the direction the vehicle is traveling, time will slow down EVEN more so that they aren't moving faster then light. My question is WHY does time slow down? I understand that speed is how far you travel in a period of time, so time slowing down prevents you from going faster then light. I also understand the reason you can't get something to go faster then light, is that since nothing GOES faster then light, then nothing can push you faster then light. You can't even get to the speed of light because force is mass times acceleration (why isn't it speed?). That means if your moving closer to the speed of light it won't be pushing you as hard as it as in the beggining, making your acceleration slower and slower until it will amount to nothingband you aren't getting any closer to the speed of light. So that's what I understand, but why would time slow down the faster you go, and why doesn't the universe want you going faster then light?

Keep in mind that due to the fact of participating in an "honors" or "advanced" class, as I have done, that you find yourself missing the basic curriculum of your grade, and when it comes to state exams or assessment programs, that they are testing you on what the the "non-advanced" students are learning. Since, I was in the same situation as yourself, I asked my teacher for what she was or had been teaching the students in her "non-advanced" classes. I studied the material, and was able to understand the test better than my fellow classmates. I'd highly recommend reviewing the curriculum of the "non-advanced" class. I hope this helps you, as much as it had helped me.

I'm in advance, but in all honesty its simply just tougher grades in my opinion. When me and a non advanced student worked on a project together he got 100% I got 88% because since I was in advanced.

I learn in the same class, I just usually don't pay attention. At home is where I do most of my advanced stuff though. I'm teaching myself physocology now.

Q. What do you get when you add the smallest cell in the human body with the largest cell in the human body?

A. A baby

Yes, im terrible at jokes XD

I wouldn't for multiple reasons. The first reason is that after about 1000 years chances are I won't have any limbs, accidents will probably chop them off etc. Another reason is that if everyone else evolves except me, that would be kind of awkward. Finally everyone I know would die long before I would. This would result in an endless rate of heart break every century or so.

Define "live". Not down to the trivial, but it would be important to know something about your immortality process.

 

Do we continue to age at some slower rate, or is it assumed you'll be an average, healthy person (at what age physiologically?) who can't die? Or is this more of a "as long as you don't have a fatal accident, you'll never die, at least of natural causes" sort of affair?

 

I kind of favor the idea of not dying of natural causes, but still being mortal when it comes to decapitation or being blown up. This might negate the intention of the implied immortality of "forever". Is forever important in this scenario, or is a thousand years enough?

 

As for living a whole lot longer, sure, sign me up. If I don't have to worry about my mental and physical capabilities being impaired, and could spend my scads of time accumulating compound interest, and using that to explore the world, meet new people, discover new discoveries, experience the development of our species and others over longer periods of time, and generally push the limits of how much a person can know, I can't think of a more delightful future.

I agree.

To start, I don't want this to be a giant political argument. I want you guys to post your thoughts on each of the 4 candidates(Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders. After that who you would probably vote for. Now you don't have to go into extreme detail, but the basic reasoning would be nice. If you post your thoughts on one candidate, please post your thoughts on a candidate on the other side as well, to keep it even. Also, try to use minor opinions, rather than just saying things that don't really add up at all. If two post counteract each other, or one is proven wrong, they really don't point out anything except that you didn't really research everything you posted about.

 

Again, try not to erupt into a giant argument. Just your thoughts on the candidates. Thanks in advance!

Most of your arguments are built on this simple statement. Low-gun countries have less gun related deaths. Obviously that's true, no guns means no gun related deaths. But then again your also only looking at it from one angle, how many people guns kill. I mentioned earlier about crime rates NOT related to guns, and for some reason nobody addressed it. Looking at it from the homicide rate INCLUDING every other homicide, not only gun related ones, you see a different story. Although this is comparing it to every country, not just cherry picked ones, so this might not count.

 

Also, if everyone in a country doesn't own a gun, crime rates DO go down. If everyone in a country OWNED a gun and were TRAINED how to use it, would crime rates go down too?

 

https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

 

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

 

And just for discussion what do you guys think of these?

 

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/miscellaneous-gun-control-information/#BCS

 

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

I think its obvious that we already have regulations on arms and that we can and should enact more without messing with the constitution.

 

However, I do think we need an amendment that basically says bearing arms is a privilege that brings great power and thus has great responsibility and great punishment if that responsibility isn't met. This privilege is for personal protection or sport and not to engage in war against your government. If the people need to fight an armed conflict against their government, their only chance is to either confiscate army property or acquire the aid of a foreign power. So, guns are no longer needed if this was ever the intent.

 

While we are at it, would also be nice to add another amendment that states that the founding fathers were not gods, but flawed men. These men had no idea what challenges would be faced in the future, so reading this document with only their intentions in mind would be like trying to get our morality from men who lived 2000 years ago. It would be sheer stupidity.

 

But, more likely to get an anti-gay marriage amendment before we get anything like the above.

 

This incident makes me wonder how they are able to catch terrorist plots in this country. I guess we have been lucky that they try to take action that requires communication within a group? I mean if they ever just start going rogue like this guy, well...batman help us, batman help us all.

The civil war? The uninion was a immensely armed group, the more advanced guns, the better training, and more men. They also lost just as many as the confederates. In modern time rebbeling against the government would be surprisingly easy. You see, the problem with the army, is that not all of them immediately take arms with the government, by let's say they did. They have to spread across the entire country. Now there are currently a bit more then a million armed personnel k. The united states, but let's say there are 2 million. 1 armed personnel for every 114 people. Even WITH military training they would be over run. Now obviously that's just saying we would have power In numbers, and that's clearly not enough. Just mentioning.

So john, I'm assuming your position on taking away all guns isn't the same as Inows, who would want stricter gun laws rather then simply taking away all the guns? Also, gun free countries are having a small problem with terrorist attacks I see. That's an opinion, not a fact so don't try turning that statement around on me.

When I was 7 I read a book. It mentioned a civil war cannon. I researched how the cannon worked by asking my dad how a ball would shoot from the end of a barrel. He explained in a simple manner. He said compact ******** was lit, and it burned quickly, resulting in the ball shooting out of the end. The next year in 3rd grade they asked us to make a 3 step tutorial on anything. If your reading his you probably know what I did. I explained it simply too. Take a can. Place ******** *****. Light it. Now that's a simple bomb, and I got it from basic understanding of something that I was taught. I ironically 2 years later in history they taught us how a civil war cannon worked in a simple diagram. Restriction the knowledge is pretty much impossible. As for an atomic bomb? Only a few people know how to make it, and they won't put it on the internet. Give it some time though.

I will probably go back eventually. But we were battling caricatures of evil geniuses, so it felt more like Powers than Bond.

I for one can't seem to take him seriously as a cartoon woman. I first saw swansont as austin powers and that was the first image that I associated with him. Now every time I see the picture I have to look at the name to confirm to myself that this is swansont, not somebody else. So looking at this a year later, who likes the new avatar he has now?

I recognize this is a long thread and it's unrealistic to ask you to read the whole thing, but we did discuss the idea of safety measures.

 

We discussed safety locks and mandating safes/safe storage, especially when there are children in the home. We discussed biometric locks in response to counterarguments that safes prevent one from accessing/using their gun quickly when it's most needed, and we discussed providing subsidies to those who struggle to afford these safety measures so funding and cost would not be a restrictive factor.

 

I'm curious to know, would you support or oppose these?

 

And as has been repeatedly shown, throughout this and other threads including above just a few short hours ago today, the evidence clearly indicates that carrying a gun in most instances is largely ineffective at achieving the safety you claim.

 

I understand your position. Do you understand that it's been demonstrated to be invalid and doesn't in any way help your argument?

 

Your writing is unclear. What are you trying to say here? If what never happened?

 

Regardless of your answer, 20 children every single day are hospitalized due to a gun injury and 6% of them die. My position is that we both can AND should do better, and that improvement is possible...lives can be saved...children, too... and all while showing due deference to the constitution and respect for responsible gun owners.

 

Do you disagree this is possible or even worth pursuing?

 

Prove to me there's not a teacup orbiting Neptune. (reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot )

 

School shootings are related, but peripheral to this topic anyway. Shootings happen in both gun free and gun inclusive areas. The underlying premise you're putting forth here is not only based on a misrepresentation of reality, but it's also irrelevant.

 

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/jan/13/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-says-two-mass-shootings-1950-occurred-/

Here's a link to that FBI report. You can see that's five instances stopped by "a good guy with a gun" out of... 160. That means 97% of the time citizens with guns didn't matter one iota: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents

 

Many participants at this site post from countries where guns are illegal, England and Australia and Singapore to name just a few... and all of them do so all while being free citizens unenslaved by their government, they do so while protected and safe, not overrun by tyrants or violent criminals or foreign invaders. For that reason, they have an entirely valid evidence and experience based point to make here when highlighting how nonsensical some of the arguments we've seen about those things coming to pass truly are.

 

That said, very few (if any) people here are arguing that all guns magically be confiscated or even made illegal. The point us that we can do much better than the current status quo. Surely, that's not too much to ask, is it? Surely, despite overtones repeated protestestations, that's not unreasonable. Surely!, we can at least find common ground and align on that?

I would support funding for safety measures, but then I am also wondering who would pay for it. I'm not putting it down, I would be in complete support for gun safes and safety regulations. In reality a handgun would be just as effective as a rifle if your in a close quarters situation, which would be most likely to happen if the unlikely happens, and you do have to do it. So gun safes for rifles yes, safety regulations yes, but funding for them I'm not sure how it would work. Since you have already discussed safety features, what was the decision, that it is effective at stopping deaths or that it isn't?

 

What would the safety I claim it has be? I did point out that it's true most guns would never ever be used for self-defense. When presented the evidence I agreed with it. But can it be proven that having a gun doesn't deter crime of any sort? This is not something that can be tested easily so it can honestly go either way.

 

Also, if I may ask what was proven invalid? That guns are easier to carry, that guns provide protection, or that everybody doesn't want to wear body armour?

 

I agree that doing better on gun control is possible, but I have to agree that its worth pursuing if it will save lives. What I'm trying to find is the point where you HAVE to take away all guns in order for it to save more lives rather then lose lives. You already agreed that you respect the right to own guns, so where do you think this balance is?

 

Ok, I have no evidence that a teacup isn't orbiting neptune. Since its unfair to try and have you prove the same, I'll drop this point.

 

And the 3% of the time doesn't matter at all? There is the point that most people don't carry weapons, so out of those 160 times, probably only about 120 of them had handguns. Now that is obviously giving the benefit of the doubt. Either way, most studies conducted by people for more gun control show that guns don't deter gun control. And most studies conducted by people for less gun control show that guns do deter gun control. Now only choosing select studies and saying that all those studies prove a point, so it must be true isn't going to work. They should cancel each other out in theory. Now obviously one of them is wrong, but for now even I have no clue.

 

As for those countries, is there a difference in crime rates involving knifes or other weapons? I really didn't put much thought into this one, I have to get to bed.

Hey guys,

 

I was just wonder how the group section works. I found that now I'm in the senior members and I had figured that was going to take a long time, which it didn't. But anyways I was wondering what are all the groups and are there set requirements for them? The main reason I'm asking is that I would like to know who I can trust the most. Obviously, I can trust moderators, admins, etc. Just wondering who would be the best people to trust, because I trust quite a few people, like string junkie, phi, and strange. Im not sure if this is a non-sense question or not, just wondering. Thank you!

So, the guns owned and used by the US military do something useful- they deter war.

And the guns owned by private citizens are pretty much irrelevant to that.

 

And it's the second group which kill the children, and it's that group I'd advocate controlling.

 

It's been laboured to death, but the chances of you using a gun to either threaten or kill some "bad man" are slim to non-existent (especially if you are not a criminal).

However the chances of a gun in your house killing a loved on is rather higher- especially if there are kids about and you don't keep the guns locked up.

And, as we seem to agree, a gun that's locked up isn't any use as defence.

 

All of this has been rehashed several times at great length already in this thread.

 

Re. "Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end,"

Thanks form making my point for me. Guns are not a defensive weapon, they are an offensive one.

I remind you that you said "Originally they were used as a defense against invading enemies. ". and you now seem to have realised that they are not a defensive item

 

Of course there's the fact that you are wrong (as already pointed out- and had you never heard of body armour?) bit it's beside the point.

 

Threatening or killing someone isn't what I meant. If you have a gun, your less likely to have to use it to do those things, so that's not a valid argument to an extent.

 

If you have kids in your house, make it so the kids who are toddlers aren't going to get at it, prehaps high up. Don't be an idiot and put in on the floor cocked and loaded and then cry when your toddler shoots himself in his face. As for adolescents, it's simple. Tell them theres a gun, teach them how to use it, and teach them that they are not toys. You're (iNow) less likely to play with a gun if you know that it's not a toy, and it will kill you. If your just being dumb, and go out of your way to get the gun, then shoot your brains out, then that's just the dumb generation of today. On the news a 12 year old swallowed magnets, and he had to have them surgically removed. Now his parents are saying there wasn't a choking hazard on them so they want to sue the company. Twelve years old. That's just sad. Anyway,

 

As for body armour, it stops it from penetrating, but the kinetic energy from it is enough to put you down for a little bit. And body armour isn't exactly something everybody wants to wear everywhere. But carrying a gun is easier. Now yes, a shield has been proven wrong, so you win this one. But a gun can still be used as a defensive weapon.

 

Now the children. 6 die every day. How much more would that be if this never happened.

 

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

http://concealednation.org/2013/12/colorado-shooting-over-in-80-seconds-because-of-armed-staff-member/

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

 

Yes number 3 is a little biased.

 

Anyway, that saves kids. Almost never has a school that has been armed, had a successful mass shooting. If every school was armed it would rarely work. Prove this statement wrong, don't just dismiss it by saying that's not what your talking about. Actually address this.

 

Now one other thing I would point out, even if guns were magically made illegal then it would take at least 50-100 years for them to stop showing up in the hands of criminals. People would hide guns, like drugs. Mexican cartel would ship them over the border, they would be smuggled in. Mass shootings would go up indefinitely if the only people you had to worry about were the police. Look at the violence in other countries. While law abiding citizens cant have guns, criminals are already wanted, and they DO have guns. Again, this IS besides the point, but I felt like pointing this out.

Wait. What?

Bad typo. 999,980

Most people consider a shield to be a defensive item, and a gun as an offensive one.

As for "They are intended to save people. "

I'm reminded of the quote "the idea of war is not to die for your country- but to make damned sure that the other man dies for his".

" In modern day they are used to prevent the deaths of millions of people every year. "

You seem to have overlooked the 20 or so a day which form the topic here; they don't get saved.

More importantly, who is saved by guns, and how?

Are you talking about people whose country isn't invaded because they have an army?

Because that's got nothing to do with the topic of gun control. Nobody is suggesting that the armed forces shouldn't be armed.

 

"Now a gun is no use in self defence if it doesn't kill, but its also no use if you don't have one."

It's also no use if it is safely locked up. But unless it's locked up, the kids (who are the topic of the thread) can get at it.

 

Have you read the thread- a lot of these things have already been raised.

1,000,000 - 20 = 999,999,980. That's simple math, so who would you rather save, the 20 of the 1,000,000? As for who is save by guns, read the post I made. If you don't want too, I'll quote.

 

"banning guns in one country would result in massive casualties. The reason is that if a country falls behind in weapon development its usually annihilated quickly in the event of a war."

 

This is simply saying guns ARE saving people, technically.

 

As for disarming the armed forces, here's another quote that you failed to read.

 

"That's of course saying you take away guns from everybody, military and civilian alike. Now obviously that's a bad idea"

 

Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end, and that wasn't my point. My point was that if you have a gun, fewer people will threaten you. Guns are for threats more than anything in the modern day, and they are very effective at it.

 

As for reading the entire thread, all 50 pages, of 20 post each, no. I haven't gotten time. I have read the first 10 or so pages, and the last few pages.