j_p

Nope; I really try to avoid sugar substitutes, but, then, I have the option. I do know that if you keep your sugar intake very low, things taste a lot sweeter. I find that cream makes my coffee taste sweet when I go carb-less.

Covalent bonds are stronger than ionic bonds. Though if covalent bonds were like sex, then carbon would be one big pimp, and sulfur and phosphorus are just sluts.

.. beer all over the monitor...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acesulfame_potassium

The carbonyl group is not reduced in this structure, and Wikipedia does not include it among the sugar alcohols ...

Rape is about power and control over a woman' date=' fueled by sexual desire. Imagine a guy who is doesn't have much to live for. He is poor, unattractive, untalented, and he has lived a hard life, most likely victimized himself. Women seem cruel to him because he doesn't get the time of day from them. He fantasizes about taking control of them and just taking what he wants. Eventually he might try to fulfill his fantasy.

 

Imagine another man, who is thoroughly narcissistic; he is completely self-absorbed and only thinks of himself. Since he is so self-absorbed he has trouble empathizing with other people. Woman are just objects of desire; it never dawns on him that they are people or he is simply to self-absorbed for him to comprehend it. He likes control and it angers him when he doesn’t get what he wants. He may be sadist and enjoy inflicting pain on others. He is also likely to appear normal to other people, just another guy. If he is in a situation with a woman where she turns down, he may decide to take control over her; show her whose boss and get what he wants.[/quote']

 

You are ignoring the fact that men get raped as well.

I've taken chemistry' date=' I don't get the analogies.

 

I think i get the top part, not the bonds though. Flirting?[/quote']

 

I've never really worked out the correspondance; that's just how it always seemed to me.

 

Let's see: a hydrogen bond is weak, and only sigficant when the objects are close; just as you flirt with some one because they are there, and it's fun, but it doesn't really mean anything.

 

Ionic bond: the ionic bond is one of pure attraction; the extra electron draws the molecule with the missing electron ... I think the sexual comparison is obvious.

 

Covalent bond: the strongest bond, in which electrons are shared; well, marriage means that you are actually sharing your life.

 

I guess the metallic bond is most like a community ...

"The feminist agenda is ... a socialist' date=' anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [kill their children'], practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

If you leave out the Medea bit, I'm not sure I disagree with him; I just don't see what the problem is.

Here are some analogies:

An atom is a letter.

A molecule is a word.

A reaction is a sentence.

[Reality is a conversation.]

A hydrogen bond is flirting.

An ionic bond is sex.

A covalent bond is marriage.

Protons are ova, electrons are sperm [i don't know how this analogy will help you, but it has always stuck in my head]

First, chemistry is like every other subject; it is over simplified in the early courses. You are just learning the basics; it is like learning to read. Right now you are learning the alphabet of chemistry. It gets better.

I think you are confusing elements, atoms, and molecules; some elements exist naturally as diatomic molecules, i.e. O2, N2.

What state do you live? Some states have schools with decent science programs.

You might want to contact a graduate programs, and ask them about what schools you should consider. You don't want to waste four years at a school that won't get you into a decent program.

Dak, I think that was better than the article. I've always found equations a very helpful tool in understanding complex principle.

Why does it start with a zero?

Assuming each set of three is one unit creates only six units; is that enough to tell a secret?

Is 197 prime?

So you mean many native speakers say"slowly read it", too. Just that speak "do it slowly" will be easier for mouth and throat interatcion, right?

Well, um, no, I didn't, but now you have me wondering about that.

In speech, the adverb usually follows the verb, but in writing the placement depends very much on the required emphasis.

E.g.

"Slowly add the acid to the water."

Is your native language inflected?

... taller guys always get the most respect (stupid, but true) and has the advantage of never being challenged to a fight. I always wanted to dunk too, but I'm too short

Taller and good-looking people tend to get better jobs, higher pay, and faster promotions. So you have a point. On the other hand, you can get the same effect with 'presence'; people usually thought my parents were nearly six feet tall and they were both about 5' 6".

And knowing how to stand up to agression without resorting to violence is a very handy skill in life, so shorter is an advantage there.

If you want to discourage that kind of harassment, watch your posture. Spine straight, shoulders just very slightly forward, chin slightly down, and roll off the balls of your feet when walking.

Stay away from caffiene.

And start watching women's basketball.

... like "do it slowly" instead of "slowly do it." I don't know why it would be wrong if I choose to put that adverb in front of that expression...

...I just don't get it why we can put adjective in front of any pronoun in Chinese but not in English.

These are not actually wrong, they are just uncommon. Yoda you will sound like if speak this way.

But the answer to your question is that English is not a heavily inflected language; that is why word order is so important.

Advice:

If you want to study, work on vocabulary; as long as you know the right words, the conversation will flow.

Don't worry so much about the rules of grammer; people would rather put a little effort into figuring out what you mean than watch you struggle to get the words out.

To learn the rules of grammar, read, read, read. Start with children's books, start with Dr. Suess, and work your way up.

top 0.1% and 0.2% of what??

of the test-takers, or tested, or testees.

The poll appears to have been very simple; it does not seem to ask whether the respondent believes in reports of abuse. So the 70% will include those who think the alleged abuses are acceptable, those who do not believe the alleged abuses occured [or at least are common], and those who have not heard of the alleged abuses.

Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't take the test itself.

Well, it's been a while since I took the tests, but I remember that a lot of the vocabulary is not in common spoken use. A well read person will be familar with most of the words and will have gleaned their meanings from the context in which they are used.

I would have thought that knowing 2/3 rds of the words was pretty good; some of the words are included to distinquish between the top 0.1% and 0.2%.

Did you get your score back?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ATTRIBUTION:Edmund Burke

Dogs 'tell' me their names; cats do not.

I firmly believe there is communication beyond the five recognized senses. I've experienced it several times with humans and other animals. What has convinced me this type of communication does happen is that the idea communicated is typically very banal, at least with humans.

Rather off the topic of speed and power, but what about telegraphing? The set-up for a torso powered punch is detectable by the opponent, isn't it? Blows off a 'still' torso are harder to detect and to block, aren't they?

Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.

Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.

Right, that's my point. Well, my original point was that I would find that a valid reason for not co-sponsoring the resolution, although NOT for actually voting against the resolution. [Maybe I should change my signature to 'Born to Quibble'].

Your point involves the dual usage of "I am sorry"; it can be used to apologize or express regret for something for which one is not responsible [like condolences at a funeral]. But the Senate specifically apologized, and, in general, I dislike that kind of corporate apology, because I think it cheapens what should be a profound personal act.

But I've changed my mind about this one. They passed the resolution on my birthday. So, I've decided that it was a serious and profound acknowledgment of past transgressions with the inherent promise to do better in the future.

Thank you, Senate [not "Senators", of course], for the birthday present.

I am very happy for you.

And thoroughly horrified.

But, hey, congratulations.

"Doesn't look like it was banning lynchings' date=' looks like an apology to me."

as i said, it's both. and see, it makes sense. you apologize, then you show your sincerity by actually DOING something to prevent a future repeat of the problem. it's the senate, buddy. legislation is what they do.

[/quote']

 

109 Congress, First Session

Senate Resolution 39

June 13, 2005

 

...[cut to the chase]...

 

Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved, That the Senate--

 

 

(1) apologizes to the victims of lynching for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation;

 

 

(2) expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching , the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and

 

 

(3) remembers the history of lynching , to ensure that these tragedies will be neither forgotten nor repeated.

[partial quote, italics mine]

 

I hate to harp on a single point, but where does this resolution say anything about banning lynching?

 

I don't want to post the entire resolution, but if you go to:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm

 

and type "lynching" in the keyword search, you get four hits; two refer to S39, quoted in part above.

 

[s44, which has been introduced but not enacted, also says nothing about banning lynching. S113 is about a commemorative postage stamp.]