John Cuthber

"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.

I predict the sun will rise tomorow because it always has in the past. If you feel hungry will you go and get something to eat? Surely that's absurd because it relies on the prediction of the future; the prediction being that eating will stop you being hungry; and you cannot predict the future. Do you really think that the figures for rape will change much? Is it absurd to predict that human nature, warts and all, will basicly remain the same? Here's a stock market tip based on the same principle. Share values will generally go up over the long term. Feel free to try to sell it on to any stockbrokers you meet. Perhaps you didn't notice the bit where I sugested that we might be able to prevent the bombing even though that would falsify my predictions. I will try to make the bit about poor tactics clearer. If your tactic is one that would piss you off if you were in the place of the neutral (or at least not actively hostile) neighbours of your enemy and would convert you to active hostility and if the actual enemy are few and far between and the neighbours are common; then it's a dumb tactic. For example the UK government , faced with IRA terrorism tried a policy called internment. Basicly they locked up known IRA sympathisers and activists. OK Hindsight is 20 20 vision but how big a shock is it that, when they locked up 1 man, the IRA was more easily able to recruit his brothers, father, neighbours and so on. They dropped that tactic. It is, as has been pointed out, very hard to spot terrorists so it's very hard to target them accurately. This, in turn means that a lot of innocents, bystanders and neighbours will also be affected by any action you take against terrorists unless you are extremely careful. The Abu Ghraib incidents will not have seemed like extreme care to the locals. Nor will Gitmo. They will have looked exactly like theactions of "evil Americans" they had heard about from the likes of OBL. OK, Gitmo may have removed a few terroists from "active service"; how many more has it produced? I guess it's impossible to know directly. But if the incidence of terrorism has risen it's not unreasonable to say that there are more terrorists. If there are more of them it's reasonable to ask why. If the reason for that might well be the current policy then you have to ask if there's a better one. "Dropping food is a great way to combat terrorism. This way, the places they used to be won't be in danger while they're on their way to snatch up the food drops. Rewarding terrorist activities is the best way not to recruit?" Doh! Drop lots of food; enough that there's no reason to compete for it. That way you reward those people who are not terrorists and, since they are the majority, that's not a bad thing. Seriously, imagine you are OBL or someone of his nature. If the Americans are dropping food from the sky how are you going to recruit people to "fight the evil Americans"? Do you not think that most people would say "Well, sure I could do that and probably die , or I could not bother..."?

A beautifu demo and potentially useful too. That technique was formerly used in analysis to isolate chromium from other metals.

Perhaps they usually don't bother to mention it. What is the point of politically apointed judges if they don't make the (politicaly motivated) decisions the politicians want?

Haezed, be careful saying things like "Very few deaths are actually caused by terrorism compared to auto accidents and we are over reacting to their rearrangement of our largest city's sky line and attempt to take out the capital." you might get accused of pacifism. Of course, you might have been joking. There's a lot to be said for taking an argument to its logical conclusion. If on the other hand you take it to an ilogical conclusion that's another matter. You are, practically speaking, setting up a strawman. Can you not see the difference between total capitulation and seeing that the other guy might have a point? Paranoia It's true to say that just because there has been a rise in terrorism since Mr Bush introduced these tactics does not mean that those tactics are responsible; after all there has been an increase in terrorism since my neighbour's cat died in 2001, that doesn't mean his death is the cause. However if the policies are the sort that, if they were applied to you and your "group", they would lead you to consider attacking those responsible, you have to consider that there might be a causal relation. If there is such a relation then changing those policies would be a good idea. That doesn't preclude the value of saying, for example, "GWB's policies suck because they kill lots of people." Also, the death toll form the Hiroshima bomb is estimated as about 192000 (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0014151.html) The number of rapes in the US is of the order of half that every year. (http://www.nytimes.com/specials/women/warchive/970203_1408.html) Over the course of the next 50 years a bomb would kill something like 25 times fewer people than will be rape victims. I don't think 25 times more victims is going to pale anytime soon. Then you can add the muggings, murders, vehicle accidents.... Of course, defending the fissile material that you need to make a bomb with might be a cheaper option. Incidentally, this idea "But that logic doesn't work, because ANY plan that involves fighting back is going to increase terrorism and recruitment." is interesting. When they first started dropping bombs on Afghanistan, it struck me that it would have been cheaper and more effective to drop food. This would have been fighting back against the warlords because it would have undermined their power. I don't think it would have upset the locals or helped recruit any more terroists. As I see it, any plan that involves recruiting more terrorists is not a way to fight back against terrorism.

When you say "I'm thinking it's glass." do you mean glassy carbon (which is a form of graphite)?

Does anyone have any thoughts about this anouncement? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6558569.stm

You might be able to do it. Does anyone here really understand the nature of the coriolis effect? The trade winds seem to find it easier to go one way rather than the other but I don't know how much of that is driven by the sun tracking accross the sky. If the earth were perfectly spherical it would be easier to run round the equator than down zero longitude from the north pole and then up the other side because you wouldn't have to fight the effect, but I don't think it would matter which way you ran.