John Cuthber

I'm not sure what you are looking for. If it's a chemical reaction that t butanol does but nothing else does then I think it's a lost cause. If you are just trying to distinguish it from the other butanols then it's a lot easier.

I suspect that their "right wing" candidate will have policies that are to the left of our "left wing" prime minister. Mr Blair. Also, while it spoils the telegraph's story, surely the French have addressed this problem before? The French word for teacher is masculine; not all teachers in France are men.

"ternary compounds isn't on wiki.........." How hard did you look? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_compound "Baking powder is one of them, I`m beginning to wonder, are you guys trying to bake a Cake or something?" I hope they don't plan to put any ionic fluorides in it. I also think they might be asking about the reaction product(s) of chlorine (a halogen) and sodium hydroxide (an alkali, rather than a metal)

Given that the answer to 40 is a fairly common liquid, is it really true to say that it has abnormal behaviour? Normally I sugest Google but for #14 I'd try wiki and see what it can tell you about ternary compounds. I'm a long way from convinced about your answer to #5 Someone said "If you mean alkali metal, then look no further than your kitchen for a compound that is formed between an alkali metal and a halogen.". What about if you don't mean that?

Here's another 3 to help you with your "clean sweep"; again, all you need to do is work out which is which. Bleach Hydrogen peroxide solution Soap

I think it's fair to assume that, if you need to ask those questions, you are not going to be doing that experiment anytime soon.

The fact that it goes dark at night imposes an interesting set of limits on the (early) universe.

"you realise the distinction is an artificial one? if you agreed with the IRAs struggle, then they'd be a bunch of civillians mass-resisting. if not, then they're a bunch of terrorists. Exactly, which makes my point." I thought the difference was that, if the majority took part in the mass resistance it was legitimate and if it was some small self-interested group then it's terrorism. The talk of the IRA is largely irrelevent; the gun laws in the UK (and N Ireland) are so tight that many of their attacks were with bombs and most were with baseball bats. "in the middle of no-where, you could get away with it. so i don't think your example is that good, tbh." Err? in his example they didn't get away with it; the cops got them. Peter Blake is still dead and he's still dead because he tried to act the hero (of course, if he were trained and well practiced it might have been different, but there would still have been dead people).

"although it doesn't actually contain krypton so it can't be called kryptonite." Does that mean that witherite in some sense contains the apex of an animal's back? Is M. Jean Baptiste Biot trying to escape from biotite? Names of rocks are pretty much arbitrary.

Any legal system that depends on a jury to make decisions has a risk of mistakes being made; that's the reason there are appeal systems. It's hardly a reason to avoid making laws just because the outcome could depend on a jury. Why do you say this "giving an intruder the consideration of clearly establishing his intent is MORE consideration than he is giving." There is no requirement for any clarity of intention. All you have to do is show that it was reasonable for you to think that what you did to defend yourself, was what was required in the circumstances. If he pulled a club and you mistook it for a knife so you got a knife and stabbed him you would be in the clear (provided that the jury believed you) If it's dark then the jury will accept that it was a reasonable mistake. Even if you say that you didn't think clearly because you were to frightened then (particularly if you are old and frail) the jury will take that into consideration. "What do you do whe Can I check on something? If a lunatic walks into a house in the States, naked and gibbering and comes across, for the sake of argument, a bunch of gun fans showing each other their prize possesions, and one of them (the home owner) shoots him, would that be legal? Would it be fair? I feel that decision should be made by a jury who are aware of the facts rather than a prescriptive law that says "he's in your house; he's fair game". "What do you do when the police come for you?" Well, either I have faith in the judicial system, or I accept that there's no point discussing gun control law or any other law because it won't be enforced. Even with a gun I couldn't take on the police in a fight. How does this make a difference to gun control?

I can't see this idea "The reason we are allowed to bear arms is for the people to defend themselves against their government. Which means that the people should be able to own any weapon the government has." working while the government has more money to spend on guns and mercenaries than you have. Don't get me wrong; I have alot of sympathy for the idea; I just don't believe that it will work.

Err, what about the fact that, since the police carry guns, it's simply not true? Oh, I just realised, it's a waste of breath with folks who don't see the obvious common sense in that. If you don't get that, then all logic is apparently useless in convincing you...

You show me a safe drug and I will show you a placebo. Anyway, just a handy hint for those looking for details of syntheses on the net. Put the word "flask" in the search string. That will get most of the sites with practical detail and lose a lot of less directly useful stuff.

Is it my imagination, or is that an advert?

Has anyone actually thought this through? What should happen to eyedrops? They get put in eyes and, like tears they drain away through to your nose and to the back of the throat where they are swallowed. How toxic can they be? Certainly, enough of the stuff would be toxic; same with water, so what? How did a myth like this ever get started without someone spotting this slight problem with the story?

I suspect that most cement is far too alkaline to permit the growth of yeast.

I don't understand this reference. "Many people here want a similar option like you have in the US where we have a protected right to defend ourselves and our property by whatever means are necessary." As Dak has pointed out, here in the UK you are allowed to use any means necessary to defend yourself (and family) and property. You don't need a law degree; you just have to act reasonably. If you cannot act reasonably you shouldn't be out on your own never mind carry a gun. The alternative seems that we introduce the death penalty for trespass. There was a recent case where a farmer was convicted becuse he shot a couple of burglars. He shot them in the back and they were unarmed; does that not rather change the interpretation? As I see it the simple truth about guns is that they are for killing people. The fewer of them there are about the place the better. At least nobody has brought up the old line about "If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have them" so I guess the message has got through about that.

Does this help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markovnikov's_rule

"Anyone believes this is possible?" and the answer is (presumably) yes, you and your pharmacist believe it is possible. Personally, I doubt it and (call me conceited) I think I'm probably in the majority.

Maybe people have realised that if the last mass shooting didn't produce gun control, and the one before didn't, then why should another few dozen dead?

The density will give you a good start but you cannot really calculate this sort of thing from first principles. After all the density of the solid gives you the mass of a given volume of the solid. When that's disolved in water there's no reason to supose it will be the same volume. The real answer is to calculate the amount of FeCl3. 6H2O you need, add the calculated volume of HCl and then place the mixture in a 500 ml volumetric flask. Then you make the mixture up to 500 ml with water. BTW, what do you want it for? there's no way it's going to be accurate because the hydration will be variable.

Have you studied lenses and image formation in general? The fact that this lens is in an eye is a bit of a distraction. (In fact, a more accurate idea of how the eye works means that there isn't enough information to answer the question so they must be expecting a fairly simple model.)

I must have missed something; "Germany under the Nazis and Afghanistan under the Taliban come to mind, as well as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait." OK, Germany invaded Poland etc., Iraq invaded Kuwait. The international community responded to both those acts. Remind me; who did Afghanistan invade? I realise they are a thoroughly unpleasant lot but that's a slightly different kettle of fish from invading another country.

I don't want them making political decisions and I can't see why anyone thought I did. I'm just pointing out that that is exactly what they do. Since they do that (and why else would they get the jobs?) there's not much point commenting on it.

I can't really tell people about the bomb because it's your prediction, not mine. You wrote "You really believe in the next 50 years they won't achieve it? Do you believe they won't try to use a nuclear weapon in the next 50 years? Rapes and muggings pale in comparison to that dynamic..." and, in doing so you introduced this single bomb. Why acuse me of inventing it? My only prediction was to guess that it would be about as bad as one of the bombs that has been used. I guess that you are now predicting lots of atom bombs; that would make a difference, but it's moving the goalposts a bit. It's also perfectly possible that a single bomb could kill 25 times more people than died at Hiroshima; it might also kill fewer. If it's ridiculous of me to try to predict the future then it's clearly just as bad when you do it and predict that for some reason the death toll will be a lot bigger than it was last time.