Jump to content

John Cuthber

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    17591
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by John Cuthber

  1. Do you know about valency? The sulphur is 4 valennt, the oxyges are 2 valent and the hydrogens just 1. Generally oxygens don't form chains (in this molecule they do't) There is, I think, only one possible structure.
  2. "What is being said is that the risk is minimal, and does not warrant a ban." At best that's debatable, dead people are usually taken as grounds to act where it's practical. "What is being said is that your identification of type is questionable." As was pointed out there's little chance that misidentification is the reason for the numbers. "What is being said is that there are several more effective ways to achieve the goals for which you are arguing (safety of others), and that the ban will not achieve that end." No other means has been put forward and the ban in the UK has proved ef
  3. I think this http://xkcd.com/401/ is a vastly more likely scenario.
  4. The video shows some people and some dogs. None of them atack anyone. This is not evidence that neither men nor dogs ever attack people. I guess I could find a similar video of a man and a different breed of dog so what's your point? The tag line to the video is "regardless of breed" which proves my point. You couls use another breed of dog that is less likely to attack people and get the same benefit. Anyway, this whole thread is going nowhere. You say these dogs should be permitted in spite of the risk "because you want to" (and that's what the argument from liberty really means)
  5. "I can't see how this gives you the required justification to remove choices from others." Because your free choice might kill me. "Also, "most dangerous" is some interesting rhetoric considering we are talking about 3 deaths per year." Would you be happier with "most likely to kill"? Most is simply a superlative; it tells you that there is no other breed of dog more likely (based on the evidence) to be responsible for a human's death. It's not rhetoric, it's simply a reiteration of the fact. 3 deaths a year is 3 too many. "Not relevant. You're trying to take away a freedom. The
  6. "The larger point, of course, being that all dogs collectively kill very few people overall, so trying to ban the one type that seems to kill a little more than the others (by percentage) is odd. " So, if faced with this advert "New! Bloggs and co's new "thingy"! Statistically shown to be at least 26%* more likely to kill an innocent bystrander than any competitor's comparable product!" (* some estimates say it's 50 times more likely!)" you might buy the product? Oh, and BTW, 50 fold more likely to kill someone isn't a little. Remember to include both ends of the range of estimates
  7. "If trade winds where related to the earths rotation, how do you explain this map:" I don't. I just point out that they all seem to go perpendicular to the axis of the rotation. Quite a coincidence if there's no relation. However, a quick look on wiki and I find "The surface air that flows from these subtropical high-pressure belts toward the Equator is deflected toward the west in both hemispheres by the Coriolis effect. " Now, I'm pretty sure the coriolis effect has a lot to do with the earth's rotation. (Nice map BTW, it's on the same page I quoted) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_w
  8. Thanks for your support SkepticLance, I wondered if you had been eaten by a poodle. It has been pointed out that these dogs do exist so the argument about "who would have suffered if we hadn't bred them?" is irrelevant. I contend that we made a mistake and we can rectify it. If we neutered them all today the problem wouldnt be with us long. Humanity changes its mind quite a lot. We abolished slavery and accept that it was a mistake. At least one country has decided that pitbulls, while perhaps not a mistake in their day, are not longer appropriate. As for iNow's last post... "Yeah, I
  9. I think ascorbic acid is much more likely to be added as an antioxidant than as a microbicide. Much of it is made commercially by fermentation; it can't be that good at killing bugs if they make it. Unfortunately, the same goes for the other acids you mention. They may supress some moulds and bacteria but I don't think you could rely on them for long
  10. There are two ways of looking at it. A lot of British students sit in French lessons totally failing to learn anything. However, in my school alternate years did French and German (which eased the timetabling problems for the languages department) so the kids in the year above me or the year below didn't learn French at all. Some of them managed to learn German.
  11. "I think all british students learn French." I don't.
  12. In addition to being unwise the problem is logically impossible. Your potential height is as tall you as you can get. You can't get taller than "as tall as you can get". However I made that point just so as I can re-itterate the advice given above; it's not worth it (I'm rather older than you so I won't be doing any more growing and I'm 5' 9''. It doesn't bother me)
  13. The product of the reaction of ethylene and chlorine is dichloroethane. Dichloroethane is also known as ethylene dichloride even though (unlike ethylene) it no longer has a double bond. It's a quirk of old nomenclature. Look on the bright side, we no longer refer to the stuff as "oil of dutch chemists".
  14. Baking powder would work. Alka seltzer (sp) tablets (the stuff sold to treat hangovers ) would work too. http://www.alka-seltzer.com/as/experiment/student_experiment.htm
  15. Does abateNth pass the Turing test?
  16. Is it just me or is this "nearly definitely winds. decayer, the atmosphere and planet can be considered at rest with each other" a contradiction? The wind is what you get when the air isn't at rest wrt the earth. Also I'm sure the earth's rotation is part of the explanation of things like the trade winds, doldrums and jetsrteam.
  17. "That's my idea at randomization" Indeed.
  18. I think you will have a problem. Milk curdles when acidified and I don't know if you can get it that acidic without curdling. Certainly when it turns sour the stuff denatures and that's due to bacterial action producing lactic acid so it's not acid enough to be bacteriostatic.
  19. English and French (badly). A foriegn language qualification was a requirement for the university I wanted to attend- my school happened to do French. Oh BTW, puting English and American might be amusing from the point of the English but it might upset the Aussies and Kiwis. Even more complicated if anyone happens to speak any of the native American languages.
  20. "Can we not also say that about colors of people??" No, because people were not "bred". Feel free to actually answer the question rather than setting up a strawman. "I asked a question earlier I believe abouthow many of these dogs are actually verified as pit bulls. I still have not recieved a backed up answer." This point was already discussed: post number 162 etc. I grant that the answer is that we don't really know, but it's the best data we have. Again, feel free to find some better data. You will probably want to do the same with the data that says that roughly a third of fata
  21. Ho Hum, The dog didn't attack at 12 Noon. It didn't attack at one pm. It diodn't attack at half past twelve. It didn't attack at quarter past. It didn't attack at 7.5 mins past. It didn't attack at 3.75 mins past.... Since there are an infinite number of occasions when the dog didn't attack I think it's not rational to rational to count them. Have fun counting them if you insist, but don't say I have lost rationallity. "As demonstrated above, the numbers simply don't bear out this position" If we accept that a third of the deaths are due to pitbulls (which is what the numbers show) and
  22. Presumably the zero means "not detected". What's the detection limit and how good is the precision of measurement there (these are pretty low levels and I suspect the measurement's accuracy may suffer on that account). I really don'y believe you can distinguish between 0.00001205 and 0.00001206 so I think that's an outbreak of spurious accuracy. In any event I don't think you will be able to answer the question becuse you don't know what the soil is like and also you don't know what it was like before people started growing crops there.
  23. "I believe John was responding to me, where I thanked him for his honesty." I was. BTW, Small children, who form a sadly large fraction of the victims of dogs, not just pitbulls, are not really in a position to pick a fight with a big dog and the dog could generally run away faster. The same goes for the elderly. I don't care how many occasions there are where a dog didn't attack; I'm only concerened about the occasions where they did. The question is not "do we ban all dogs?" but "do we ban a type of dog that seems to cause more than its share of human deaths?" There are
  24. I base my ideas on two pieces of evidence. 1 is that 66 people were killed by pitbulls and this represents a large fraction of the deaths from dog attacks in comparison to the number of pitbulls versus the number of other dogs. This was put forward here some time ago and hasn't been challenged. Pitbulls are not one third of the dogs, but they cause a third of the deaths. The second piece of evidence is the one that's missing and that I keep asking for. If there were something special about this particular breed that would offset the fact that it tends (more than other dogs) to kill peo
×
×
  • 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.