RyanJ

Interesting, thanks everyone! I think this requires more research on my part too. Thanks for all your contributions

I guess one "benefit" is research into how genes behave, what they do etc. another is to grow organs for transplants that won't require immunosuppressant drugs to stop it being rejected.

@SkepticLance: Yes, that is the question I intended too ask. So the answer is we don't know how this actually occurs? There must be some form of initation I guess, I just can't work out what it would be @Glider: I didn't think of it that way but in what way does this actually initate a response? There must be a deciding factor that determines when this stimulus will be used to initiate a response such as moving your hand to take hold of somehting. We see things all the time and yet we only actually reach out to grab something when we "want too".

This is also true but there must be some initiation too make a neuron fire, simple put - if there is no sensory neuron sending the original impulse too the brain to do something then what initiates the neuron in the brain that causes movement without direct stimulus?

Just my opinion but I'd partially attribute a persons susceptibility too addiction partially too genetics and partially to their brain structure. I'd take this opinion because genetic factors determine the number of receptors in the neurons throughout the body, if for example we have more receptors that respond to a particular drug, it may be easier for a person to become addicted because the effect is in effect greater for them than someone else. I'd also argue brain structure because if we have a center that is unusually sensitive too the presence of a certain transmitter it will more easily be activated by small quantities of the compound than someone without. Again, I'd also put it down too other things that are in-between both of those two, metabolism determines how fast the drug is broken down in the body etc.

That's a point I never considered and I guess it could be a partial answer. I can't really put the question into words, the best I can do is this: When we think "Move your left arm" we activate the various muscles in the arm to preform a precise movement but how does this impulse actually start? We haven't received any stimulation to take any action and I random neuron firings just won't work for this so something must be sending an impulse but where does this originate and how is the original impulse actually started?

Hey everyone! We are studying neurons and the CNS in biology right now, a very fascinating subject for me. I understand that certain pathways in the brain gain their information from receptor cells and the like but I came across something I don't understand. I understand the concept of receptor cell process initiation I don't however understand how a thought process can be initiated without such an event. Say for example when you instruct a movement in your hand, there are no receptors that can fire for this because there is no external stimulus so my question too you is: how does this occur? Thanks for the help!

Some harmful information can be put too good use in the right hands so it could be an evolutionary response as you suggest. We have the botulism toxin that kills and yet in small enough doses can actually help people with muscle conditions. Its also a very good idea to know when something is dangerous so if xxx is ever encountered we know how to deal with it without getting injured, if we didn't know the dangerous information we have the potential to get hurt if the situation ever arises. Just my ideas

1. Look up Lewis structure on Wikipedia as suggested by ecoli. 2. To determine if something is polar, we first need to understand the concept of electronegativity. The most electronegative element is fluorine, this will try to draw electrons in a bond too itself no matter what it is bonded too. The next one we are interested in here is oxygen then nitrogen. Now, lets look at your first example. We have HO-CN, lets split it into the two component groups: HO and CN. In the first group (HO) we have oxygen bonded too hydrogen so in this case we have a polar bond, the electrons are drawn towards the oxygen far more than the hydrogen. In the second group we also have a strongly electronegative element, nitrogen, boded too a far more electropositive element, carbon. This means that this bond is also polar. We now know that both the groups are polar and from this we can pretty much say that HOCN is polar. To add too this we also have an oxygen bonded too the carbon here so we do indeed have a definite polar molecule See if you can get the second one and if not we'll try to give more hints.

I'm saying its simple to do, I can't actually say weather or not it is done without investigation. I simply said it could be dome quite simply so if MS wanted to send more data than they said they were, there would be no way to say they weren't without specialist means of doing so. Its not but the potential of what it allows the OS to do is important here.

Isn't that the whole point anyway? To compile a complete scientific study of all but the simplest phenomenon could take a lifetime if not more. I give them credit though, they do a lot of research and a lot of testing off-set but your point is still 100% valid even though I don't think Mythbusters was ever intended to fully prove / disprove an actual myth. Actually its really a good thing they don't as it leaves interpretation of the results too the viewer plus it allows them to extend beyond the boundaries of the myth to see if there is any truth in any part of it, something you couldn't really do otherwise.

Look here under "useful books" I'd agree with Woelen, doing some quick research turned up no useful information about iron(VIII) compounds so I'd guess their either can't exist (due to stability problems) or only exist at low energies and then only in solution.

Example 1: [ce]H3PO4_{(aq)} + 3[K^{+}_{(aq)} + OH^{-}_{(aq)}] -> [3K^{+}_{(aq)} + PO4^{3-}_{(aq)}] + 3H2O_{(l)}[/ce] Phosphoric acid is a weak acid therefore it has minimal dissociation in this context. So if we don't have much dissociation then there is little point writing it ionically. In this case all that seems to be reacting is actually the dissociated hydrogen from the phosphoric acid (as an oxonium ion) and the hydroxyl group from the potassium hydroxide forming water, the rest are spectators too the reactants. Example 2. [ce]2[H^{+}_{(aq)} + Cl^{-}_{(aq)}] + CaCO3_{(s)} -> H2CO3_{(aq)} + [Ca^{2+}_{(aq)} + 2Cl^{-}_{(aq)}][/ce] I'm not sure you could write calcium carbonate ionically here as it isn't in solution (its very insoluble in water, hot or cold). Just a little hint, try using the chemistry LaTex tags, really helps when trying to present formulas and equations

I was writing out the whole thing as an example, thanks for pointing out the lead charge issue though. I missed that

Not at all! Here's an example. [ce]2KI + Pb(NO3)2 -> PbI2 + 2KNO3[/ce] I guess we could write the net ionic equation as (note: not ignoring any spectators here): [ce]2K^{+} + 2I^{-} + Pb^{2+} + 2NO3^{-} -> PbI2 + 2KNO3[/ce] So we need to look at what is in the solution and what ions will do what in the solution. Once we know what they will do and how they will react we can predict the products. Does that help at all?

Put simply spectator ions are ions that exist in a solution that do not interact with the other particles in any way. This means they can just be ignored because they don't preform any reacting The guidelines are just ignore anything that doesn't react

Been there, done that and got the t-shirt. It is possible due to the way any OS works, you just have to trust all the packets it sends via the published means are all the packets being sent. I know its possible because I've done work on the technology in similar systems to that which Windows uses. Plenty, confidentiality violations aren't taken likely. Don't forget Sony did something similar and nobody realised until it was already on hundreds of systems. Its not MS confidentially I'd break because I don't actually know what MS is doing, I'm talking about the possibility it can be done based on projects I've worked on elsewhere

I can't go into any detail here for legal reasons but lets just put it simple. Windows manages the connection between the hardware and the software (via drivers, memory cell allocation etc.) that monitors the packets. If Window's doesn't want a packet found then it doesn't have to send it in the same way as it normally would too a piece of hardware through the drivers... in other words if Windows doesn't want a packet found it won't be. Enough said, I'd love to go into details but the forum could get in trouble and so could I and I don't want either thanks. I can't argue that there is one or isn't I'm just saying one step of privacy invasion will lead too another. Vista is just another step down this road and the sooner people realise the better. BTW you know Windows Defender is available for Windows XP right?

http://www.it-observer.com/news.php?id=6999 Need I say more? MS will go to just about any lengths to "fight piracy" and privacy with it. They don't care what they have to do to make sure your using genuine technology. and this isn't limited too spying on its users. To do what they do already requires spying on people and this is why they were basically forced to publish a way to remove windows genuine advantage. I can't say they are spying on people because I don't know but its well within their power to do so.

If you put enough work into the subject of choice I'd say you could do well at it but that depends on you.

Vista is just as vulnerable to attack as XP is. Plus of course you get the inbuilt MS kill switch, if they think your using an illegal key at any time they can basically cripple your computer. This on its own I can't disagree with because its their right to do so. However the fact that they can do this basically means they can covertly spy on you. Who needs root kits? You get one built in now! Thanks but no thanks, Vista is just a bad idea and all its hyped security doesn't amount to much but an annoyance.

Yes, I can tell you one thing; its a bad idea to get it...

I'm not so sure about this one. Human cloning has one major flaw; its taking old DNA, possible with damage and treating it as if it were a newly formed DNA strand and this has severe implications. One of the proposed reasons for ageing is that when our cells undergo mitosis, segments at the very ends of the chromosomes, called sticky ends, are damaged or lost. Nobody is sure if this is the cause and if it is why it works because they appear to contain no useful data. If this is the case growing an embryo from old DNA is basically going to lead to premature ageing of the child, the child will be young but its DNA will be effectively as old as that of the parents. Weather this can be fixed easily I don't know but I guess its possible given sufficient technology.

You are correct, my organic chemistry textbook says that the amide group is: [ce]-C(=O)-N(H)-[/ce] and the name wouldn't be the same if there were no carboxylic acid group (e.g. it wouldn't form an amino acid any more). I'm not sure of the names of these compounds though because there are probably a few of them Another reason this may be said as such because the most common acid group (and most important) is the carboxylic acid group and it is therefore generally assumed to be the one in use

I wish I could make dithiol or 4-methyl-4-sulfanylpentan-2-one because apparently one of those is potentially the smelliest substance ever. I don't think I'd go through with it though; the stuff would linger for too long