Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4860 profile views

ScienceNostalgia101's Achievements


Molecule (6/13)



  1. Didn't expect PETA-types on this site. o.o In any case, opening a window would just allow more flies to come in. (And worse, risking that a bee or hornet or wasp would come in.) We aren't expected to spare a human burglar's life either, yet in that circumstance I think I'd just retreat and call the cops, partly for my own safety's sake, but also because a burglar has more to potentially live for than a housefly. At least in my town. EDIT: Though for the record, and just so I don't sound like TOO much of a dick, I try to finish them off as soon after spraying them as reasonably possible so it's a quick death. I don't mean to torture them, I'm just not good at killing them without spraying them first.
  2. I notice alcohol easily kills houseflies; when I can hit 'em. (Yes, I finish them off just to be sure.) But they're crafty little things, and usually manage to maneuver around it, especially when they can tell I'm coming. I want to be able to spray them from far enough away that they can't tell I'm coming, but that the alcohol still hits them with enough force to kill them, or at least leave them immobile enough to finish off. Is there any way to create a stronger spray bottle than the kinds alcohol is usually stored in? (Sidenote: Yes, if I ever in the future intend not to live alone, I will ensure I get a locked safe to keep the bottle in so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.)
  3. I intend to get groceries later today and hopefully will remember the vinegar this time, but in the meantime if I use lime juice to get tape residue off the windowsill, and wipe it down with water afterwards, are there any particular precautions I need to make against it attracting mold or other harmful organisms?
  4. Thanks for the clarification, everyone. I vaguely heard of lifestyle as a factor in allergies before but wasn't sure whether this was a fringe notion or not... seems not.
  5. The idea that our immune systems would mistake food of all things for something harmful sounds bizarre. The idea that it would react to a lethal extreme to anything sounds even more bizarre. Surely even if it thinks the threat is lethal, obviously the response would have to be just shy of lethal to be of any help at all. Yet we hear of life-threatening allergies to food items of all things all the time. How did life-threatening allergies to food items not result in enough anaphylaxis deaths over the course of evolution to leave behind only the genes that tell the immune system how to tell food from life-threatening pathogens? Or at least tell the body there's no point fighting a lethal pathogen with an even more lethal response?
  6. Well, thanks for the replies thus far, but in light of the aforementioned issues of the hassle with ice packs and heating packs, I think I'm just going to look for something that's as breathable as possible. Thanks again, everyone!
  7. So for a geek convention coming up in a few months I was... considering dressing up as a cartoon animal. (Been going a little too mundane with my prior cosplay and wanted to make up for lost time.) But I'm worried about being too warm in it, so I want some sort of coolant between my outer costume and inner clothing. Icewater, I presume, would be a little too drastic and probably result in frostbite, if not hypothermia. (Even if I found a material watertight enough to make it work.) However, is there any other coolant whose equilibrium temperature is a little more comfortable; not too hot, not too cold?
  8. So it's mostly an aggregation of data from different sources, then. Fair enough. That still falls under the category of "country from which said greenhouse gases enter the air" more so than category of country being assigned blame for it. In any event, thanks again.
  9. So I presume, then, that this means that greenhouse gas emissions are calculated based on the country from which said greenhouse gases enter the air?
  10. So this site puts Canada past the USA as far as greenhouse gas emissions per capita go. Which strikes me as a tad counter-intuitive, as we're not quite as prone to car culture as Americans or to eating quite as much meat. But then I got to thinking about the notorious bitumen sands of the prairies, and how those are considered especially bad for the environment, even compared to the (as of Deepwater Horizon) infamous fossil fuel extraction methods of the USA. But that leaves behind two further questions: A. How do they distinguish greenhouse gases produced at extraction from those produced at consumption? Is it simply a matter of calculating from which country they go into the air (eg. if extracted in Canada and consumed in the USA, the GHGs from extraction are counted as Canadian ones and the ones from consumption counted as American ones) or is there some more precise formula built on assessing culpability? B: Is it really fair to blame oil producing countries for catering to consumer demand? If one country didn't cater to consumer demand, another would. Doesn't the real blame belong to the consumer? If the latter, does the same apply to individuals vs. companies?
  11. Cool! Thanks again for the info, guys. Sorry I forgot about this thread until just then...
  12. So I was recently watching this video on YouTube and it shows a bunch of large balloons being popped in slow motion. (First example a few seconds shy of a minute in.) I can't tell whether that is dust or mist or something else at the outer edge of what used to be the balloon immediately after it was popped. Could the act of popping a balloon cause enough adiabatic expansion to bring the air in the immediate vicinity of the balloon to the dewpoint? Would the remnants of the balloon be aerosolized to the point of initially being visible as dust in the aftermath of the popping? Or is it a "little from column A, little from column B" solution with the aerosolized balloon bits acting as cloud condensation nuclei in a room otherwise close to the dewpoint? Or some other explanation I am missing here?
  13. "Equal" is undefinable, so the point is moot. Each sex faces different and unique struggles to which what one would consider the opposite sex "equivalent" is inherently a matter of opinion.
  14. The same applies; do they not select based on who they think is more likely to win them an election? It's in the interest of everyone in a particular party for them to be the ones in power, and the more of their candidates win, the more power the party has. What any politician who embraces gender quotas; if it's done out of sincerity and not just pandering; is effectively saying, is "I do not trust my own judgment in who to appoint to cabinet, as even among the candidates a plurality of male and female voters combined picked, from among candidates my own party picked specifically to appeal to that plurality of men and women combined, I myself think my own bias in favour of men in politics, shared in common with the constituents who put my party into power, would cloud my own judgment in who to assign to what role." If that's what they're arguing, fine. But they shouldn't then fire them for publicly dissenting against any of their other ideas.
  15. It was not my own opinion, it was that of everybody else. I wouldn't claim to know why male nurses and teachers have a higher salary than their female counterparts, but frankly it sounds like a fair enough exchange for how much more serious an accusation a sexual relationship with a student / patient would be depending on the sexes thereof, and in turn, the leverage those invoking this as an accusation would have against male teachers compared to against female teaches. (See also; male teachers smeared as pedos for enforcing dress codes.) I'd think of it as hazard pay. And yet, it is the plurality of voters, half of them female, who chose to exclude them from "positions of power." Do they not have that right in their capacity as voters? Your point hinges on also counting certain other notions as misogynistic, a point I dispute. Also, the anti-immigrant thing is clearly the main selling point. It's the only thing that really stood out about Trump during the primaries. They can't afford to throw their market-worshipping crap under the bus to save their anti-immigrant crap. If anything's going to get thrown under the bus, it's the market-worshipping crap. (Hence the being okay with a guy who accepted help from Putin, who's trying to "restore" the Soviet Union...)
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.