studiot

It's not. It denies consciousness for all algorithmic entities equally. I don't recall either you or I specifying an 'algorithmic' entity. If you wish to limit your 'entities' to algorithmic ones, you should specify this as the issue becomes quite different.

1) Molarity 500ml solution contains 150ml ethanol 1000ml solution contains 300ml ethanol = 0.300 litres [math]{\rm{Number}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{moles}}\;{\rm{in}}\;{\rm{0}}{\rm{.3L}}\;{\rm{of}}\;{\rm{pure}}\;{\rm{ethanol = }}\frac{{{\rm{volume \times density}}\;{\rm{pure}}\;{\rm{ethanol}}}}{{{\rm{molecular}}\;{\rm{mass}}\;{\rm{ethanol}}}}{\rm{ = }}\frac{{{\rm{0}}{\rm{.300L \times 789g/L}}}}{{{\rm{46}}{\rm{.069g/mol}}}} = ?M[/math] But this amount is the amount of ethanol in 1 litre of 30% aqueous solution So the molarity is ?M 2) You do realise that diluting a solution 1part to 10 parts will result in a fraction of 1/11 or less than 10% ?

+1

Thanks I didn't know that. +1

Can I ask if this paper is a version of the Drake equation suggesting that the probability of any artificially constructed system becoming self aware, sentient or conscious is so low that it can't happen ?

+1 for reading the rules here and posting appropriately. What a good start for your discussion. You have posted a lot of material so it will probably take some time for folks to read and digest. There are several members interested in aspects of AI here.

A couple of things I don't quite understand here. Historically the old scandinavian culture is only other culture I know of with a tradition of 'beserkers'. But that was more than a thousand years ago. Does anyone know if there were many or even any such incidents from the 1860s to say the 1930s in America, when there was an abundance of guns ? Secondly I understand that whilst it is illegal for Texas to ban abortion directly, they have weazelled around it by making it illegal to "travel to an abortion". So could some indirect bans be effective with guns ?

I think that both creation and evolution are often ill specified terms thrown about with 'gay careless abandon' by 'all and sundry' , so +1 for bringing out that fact. This is, of course, why we are more careful when talking scientifically and often 'create' new specialist words, such as abiogenesis, with precise meanings. Create, of course, remains unspecified in this thread. Rowling 'created' Harry Potter, but does he exist ?

This is not surprising news, as species location boundaries have always moved with changing climate. However it is good news, especially if Man looks after the new areas as suggested in the article. Coral is one of the 'canary' lifeforms for global warming. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61592108

My question was a joke. Your question cannot be answered without further information. I would be inclined to say zero because the dessicant has become saturated.

If three monks can drink 15 bottles of wine in 5 hours how many monks can 24 bottles drink ? We need much more information, mate.

This is posted in Earth Science, where there are many disparate definitions of 'mineral'. https://www.uky.edu/KGS/rocksmineral/minerals_definition.pdf A sub class of these definitions, which I assume you are referring to concern chemical compounds of definite proportions and sometimes crystalline definite structures which form the ingredients that make up the rocks, such as olivines, quartz, feldspars. Minerals can be pure metal (eg native copper) , metal or non metal compounds such as oxides (eg hematite), silicates (eg garnet) , carbonates (eg calcite), sulphides etc etc. Of these, some can truly be called salts and some of these are indeed coloured, for instance Azurite - copper crbonate is 'azure blue. Chromite - the iron salt of chromic acid is black Wulfenite - the molybdate salt of lead is yellow/orange/brown Most coloured minerals are not salts though and many arise from replacement metal atoms in a silicate matix. Silica (silicon dioxide) is itslef colourless but impurities create many coloured varieties wg rose quartz.

I think you need to look elsewhere. Your nearly had the right idea when you replied to my question. I say the positively charged proton exposed due to electrons orbiting a ways from that nucleon. The point for this thread is that standard valency bonds are permanent, as are permanent dipole interactions which do not form valency bonds. Both of these types can hold solids together. The non valency ones are a type of VDW force. But yes, a further interaction can be due to a temporary dipole. These are the London forces. Both temporary and permanent dipoles have two possible sources of derivation.

Thanks for the further more detailed information. +1

Deformability is not a very well defined concept either. You listed a some 'plastics' materials. Plastics as a collective term are renowned for their long term deformability. Continued unrecoverable deformation over time is called plastic behaviour and the result is called creep. A seal that slowly squashes is of no long term use. Soft copper for instance squashes once and stays that way. It also has a higher upper and lower temperature working range. But if this is critical you really need expert advice.

Well the language of that reply is certainly steeped in the past to the extent I'm not sure what all of it means. However I disagree completely that the questions have not changed. 50 years ago someone might just have started asking questions of swansont about lasers. But no further back.

That may be because hardness is a much less well defined concept, especially for ductile materials and even more especially for very ductile materials such as plastics. Is the required information for machine workability ?

Well I thought perhaps Moontanman and the Canadians was a pop group and I was looking for their new single. 🙂 Really though, I hoped this news would brighten the day for as many persons as possible, and I'm pleased to see it has has some of that effect.

My apologies to Mr Stokes for my mispelling of his name.

Exactly. So why do the Philosophers get it so much more in the neck that the Physicists ?

What is a positive dipole ?

What is all the fuss about ? Mass is not an 'invariant, but sometimes depends upon the environment as well as the frame. Stoles invented 'negative mass' early in the 19th century for the dynamics of soap bubbles rising through water.

And what do you think of the caloric theory ?

Some local news form near me. Indian relics returned https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61510755 Exeter museum in 'historic' handover of regalia to tribal leader

You keep referring to the positive (or negative) electrode as though positive and negative were absolute measurements. They are not they are relative statements. Positive relative to what ? Negative relative to what ? I have added a second battery to my sketch connecting its 'negative' terminal to the negative terminal of the first battery. If the first battery has a voltage of 10 volts and the new battery has a voltage of 100 volts and I measure from the positive terminal of the new battery as shown then *) The voltage at the combined 'negative' terminal is -100V and the voltage at the 'positive' terminal of the original 10V battery is - 90V So is the positive terminal positive or negative ?