rakuenso

this may sound slightly retarded, but i've been wondering, can you technically say that molecules are also evolving? We started with simple molecules like H2O and elements like Carbon, eventually they "evolved" to complex things like carbs and what not?

Flourine gas doesn't sound too safe to me...

but... overpotential/voltage is usually only relevant in aqueous solutions..

i haven't been this confused in ages.

so why only pepper?

for example, when you take a whiff of pepper you sometimes sneeze? any idea what chemical is responsible for this?

ununnilium

Ran out of lye ????? With lye you definitely cannot make chlorine gas!

I was using the lye for NaOH to make the hydrated version

hmm too dilute?

how about ammonia and bleach? will that increase the conc. at all?

I'm not sure how to obtain concentrated Cl2 in a SAFE manner. Ugh... ran out of lye

anyone know the Ea required for this rxn?

also, i'm not sure if the chlorine gas i get from bleach + vinegar will be enough for this rxn

quick Q..

whats the pKa of 5% citric acid?

btw, the bet is 25 lemons.. each

for each lemon you eat, you get to drink one less shot of vodka...

so if i eat 3 lemons, i only have to drink 22 shots...

I seem to have done something pretty stupid by making a bet with a friend with a lemon eating contest...

but anyways, is there a buffer or base I could coat my tongue/teeth that's relatively benign to reduce the acidity of lemons? Lemons are 5% Citric Acid with a pH of around 2-3.. problem with citric acid is that dissociates 3 times.. I'm not sure how this will affect the neutralization reactions if i'm going to add a base to it

notice how all the "Read all about it" Section is just saturated with scientific journals.

Not only is negative eugentics (i.e. forced sterilization or extermination of those deemed genetically inferior) an unethical means of improving the genetic fitness of the human race' date=' but it is also a rather ineffective means. Allow me to present the following simulation:

 

Lets say that condition X is caused by a rare autosomal recessive mutation. Assuming the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, there will be p^2 without mutation x, 2pq carriers for mutation x, and q^2 affected with mutation x (where p is the allele frequency of the wildtype gene, and q is the frequency of the mutant gene). If the affected individuals are removed from the population, the new allele frequency becomes q/(p+2q). Now, lets say that this disease affects 1/10000 people, so q = 1/100. This means that after one generation, q is reduced by a factor of 1-1/1.01 = ~1%. At this rate, it will take approximately 100 generations (~2,500 years) to reduce the frequency of the mutant allele by half.

 

People often cite natural selection as support for why eugentics would work. However, what they fail to realize is that natural selection acts on a geological time scale. Any effects from a forced sterilization program would not be realized until thousands of years into the future. Therefore, merely from a practical standpoint forced sterilization is a bad idea.[/quote']

 

Natural Selection also doesn't permit a population to explode like the way we have, which did not occur on a geological time scale. There is a much much bigger gene pool for natural selection to work on in our huamn case.

I'm sorry but I'd like you to back up that 'eugenics is a good concept.' How is eugenics, at any level, a good idea? The essence of eugenics is that ‘we’ (‘we’ being those in charge) can decide who is worthy to live and reproduce. I, for one, view this as a horrible idea. How can humans hold such power? I honestly cannot fathom how anyone can justify this, that certain individuals are actually worthless and should not be allowed to 1. live or 2. reproduce. No human life is worthless; it just isn’t. From both a moral and evolutionary point of view, people are valuable. We all have a birthright to be able to live and reproduce, thus leaving our mark on the Earth. No government, no institution no amount of rhetoric can void this.

 

From time to time people have been convinced that the ‘feeble-minded’ and ‘weak’ do not deserve to live. Infamously, the Nazis undertook a harsh program of ‘cleansing’ that left 6 million humans dead and ‘sterilized’. The United States, so-called bastion of freedom, even allowed eugenics to invade the shores of America, neutering those deemed to be ‘worthless.’ Carrie Buck was, in the ‘20’s, deemed “feeble-minded” and after her case went before the Supreme Court, the view was upheld that she should be sterilized and thus, she was. After that, until the 1970’s, 60,000 American citizens were sterilized. How is that a good idea?

 

Quelling the spirit of those who, arbitrarily, are seen to be ‘unfit’ is a direct blow to human freedom. Maybe I misinterpreted your statement, and I hope I did, but in any case, eugenics is, and will always be, a tool of evil to further the idea of purity in whatever form that takes: racial, mental or otherwise.[/Quote]

 

Don't forget that humans are animals, what you are saying is totally contradicting natural selection. Natural selection OPERATES on the weak and the strong. As cruel as this may sound, but there are lives that natural selection deems as worthless, those are the lives with a fitness of zero. The Nazis were stupid eugeneticists because they had no idea how genes worked. They basically based it on three factors: hair color, eye color, and how fast you can run. Natural selection operates on much more than three factors. I'm saying if WE happened to know what all those factors were, only THEN might it be conceivable. I did not mean that WE should have the power to control who lives and who dies, but rather that natural selection should be able to freely decide who lives and who dies. But as a race, there are often times when WE humans are contradicting the orthodox ways of natural selection.

 

Also, of course the strong should be able to dictate who should reproduce and who shouldn't. That's just how natural selection works. The top male seal gets 80% of all the females to reproduce with, therefore this strong male is essentially dictating who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. This is just how it works in the state of nature. Of course we could then go into a big philosophical argument as to whether humans have transcended and no under follow the rules of the game. But we'd be the first species in the history of the planet to do so if that were the case.

 

Anyways the first point was I trying to make is that, even if we did know what genes might affect fitness, we still have no control as to how nurturing can affect their fitness. As it is ultimately the PHENOTYPE that determines fitness.

see.. eugenics is a good concept.. had there not been a huge emphasis for humans on the NURTURE part of nature vs. nurture.

as the original design was modeled for use on a keyboard.

last time i looked down, I was still using a keyboard.

you've got to be shitting me

this is the end of thermite for me...

a snail with a sloth

to give you the worlds laziest creature.

does anyone know where the lye for soap can be obtained?

illuminati you're the only that voted murder.

if you've got a brain, you need sleep.

no matter how virulent the bird flu was, i highly doubt that it is capable of causing an extinction.

just so you guys know, the right answer is either B or C

can someone move this to the physics forum so we can have the physics experts' opinions?

(A) the same, would be my answer.

the potential is a property of the SOURCE charge, the fact that there's a test charge is irrelevant

also connor, imagine this:

source

(-)0V----------------x---------y

Point Y would have a bigger potential than X, so it can't be half