John Cuthber

In the context of using it in a battery, that has to be the dumbest statement I have heard in a while. What did you think you meant? Uranium chemistry is complicated; I'm not saying it would be impossible to make a battery with it. A flow cell battery might be the best bet; something like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery But the high atomic weight of uranium is a drawback, not an advantage. That's why lithium is so popular; less mass to carry around for a given number of electrons. However, none of that could possibly outweigh the problems that uranium is toxic and radioactive. (with even bigger problems for uranium mining waste)

I also try to avoid self referencing when I write spreadsheets- and for the same reason.

A large part of the job of the colon is to remove water from the gut contents before they are expelled. If it doesn't do its job, you get the runs. Stomach acids will not attack, ceramics, glass or most plastics or even some metals, such as copper. They don't even destroy tomato pips.

No.

Alchemy didn't really work. Nobody ever turned base metals into gold. They couldn't.

So, we must act, right here right now and torture you into giving us your plan for world domination.

OK, so if the greater common good requires us to torture people, who gets to decide which ones? Should we be waterboarding you to get you to admit to your plans to take over the world? I realise it's unlikely but.. as you said. "Wrong. It's more like saying that while any chance exists in saving innocent lives from kidnappers, terrorists, and criminals, then we are morally obliged to use them."

That's not what I asked.

It's a chance and we are morally obliged to try it. Is the source of your moral stance there the "greatest common good"?

He knew that at the outset. He chose to carry on. It's a pretty robust reason really, and it's not an "excuse".

But you never really know when it does. So, we lower ourselves to moral failure... just in case something that never really worked, suddenly does. Because the victim knows that lying is an option.

If you don't get that outcome- and you won't- all you have done is torture someone for no reason. You do understand that people lie, don't you?

Torture only has one outcome- the person tells you what you want to hear. That's because, if they don't, you keep hurting them until they do. If the outcome is hearing what you want, then there's no real point to the torture. You can always simply pretend that you did it- with the inevitable outcome. They said what you wanted to hear. The outcome is just the same. So you can get that outcome without torturing people. So, what are the circumstances where it's right to do something that's obviously bad, and never necessary?

To whom is this apparent?

Two years from sequencing and a year after launch, the vaccine is still doing a fairly good job.

They are doing https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/details-of-pfizer-s-investigation-into-an-omicron-specific-vaccine-for-adults-aged-18-to-55 But, in the meantime, the current vaccines are better than nothing.

It was privatised but, since the Tories only privatise profits, not risks, the taxpayer will still foot the bill. (assuming it ever gets paid)

How plausible is that? How many languages would it take?

Which is interesting. They seem to forget that an answer to "what would Jesus do?" is get very angry and kick out the bankers. The political Right wing (and that's essentially all politicians in the USA- I'm not sure about Canada) do not generally follow the views set down in the Bible.

"The feminism movement is leading to a new culture war today?" It is hard to see how a 100 year old (and then some) movement is causing anything "new" today. But it's easy to see how the current crop of "famous for being famous" pundits could be stirring the pot today because they want to get paid today.

They are different materials. Talc is a hydrated mag. silicate Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 One formula given for amosite is Fe7Si8O22(OH)2 crocidolite is Na2FeI3FeIII2Si8O22(OH)2. And so on...

Plot twist: unknown to you, the police have picked up the wrong man and you are proposing to torture someone who is actually innocent, or at least, unaware of the child's location. Does that change your view, or do you torture them anyway?

How hard did you look? The IR spectrum of CO2 is all over the web. The mathematical model is this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer–Lambert_law The complications due to the spectrum varying (slightly) with pressure and temperature are also well understood.

That's called "Driving without due care and attention".

As far as I can tell, they are still at it. https://news.sky.com/story/bette-midler-west-virginia-governor-jim-justice-raises-dogs-backside-in-the-air-and-tells-actress-to-kiss-her-hiney-12527782