Tetrahedrite

The electrical resistance is also lowered by the increased kinetic energy in the solution.

No, its a symptom of getting drunk!!!

Coming from a geological background, I don't think that the estimates are quite as they seem. What I believe will happen is that the supply of crude oil will start to run low, forcing prices up. The higher prices will however make it economical to produce petroleum/gasoline from sources other than crude oil. For example there are huge shale oil resources in Australia and elsewhere in the world. These resources haven't been exploited in over a century in many places, and the recent high prices have caused energy companies in Australia to re-examine the viability of such resources. We also have much more coal resources in the world than oil (I believe it is around 200 years of proven reserves). If the price goes up enough, it may become viable to produce petroleum/dieseline by the catalytic "cracking" of coal. On top of this, a rise in the price will also make oil/coal resources which are not economical now viable in the future.

Maybe some of us were more skeptical about the motives of the US than most Americans are.

They are incredible, I have a large artificially grown crystal with thousands of tiny steps that makes it look like the surface of a CD. Natural bismuth can also display some incredible shapes and colours.

We also have a much better life expectancy and much lower HIV infection rate! New Zealand is the same. Australasia rocks!!!

Adding excess Ca(OH)2 is more likely to form hydroxylapetite, Ca5(PO4)3(OH).

The queen isn't concerned with us becoming a monarchy. Several years ago we had a referendum to become a republic, instead of being a constitutional monarchy, but it failed because a large percentage of Australians are either old, stupid, or both. The queen had no objections to the referendum, and in fact when the referendum failed the British papers were basically calling us weak for not having the guts to change. This was another occassion when I was extremely pissed off with my fellow citizens. As for Australia becoming a state of the USA, I would be willing to die a painful death to stop that happening! Nothing more needs to be said.

Huh????

I tend to agree with jdurg here....I was confused by the use of atom to describe the pure metal.

Things are starting to look up for the country that holds itself as a "beacon" for human rights!

Firstly, I believe that on the extreme left, communism is no worse than strong capitalism on the extreme right. Both lead to corrupt societies were exploitation of the majority abounds. The problems with communism and to a lesser extent socialism are well documented and have been discussed at length on this forum. Even with its problems, I believe socialism is a noble idea, that all people in a particular society are equal, and no person is better than anyone else. The concept of looking after all members of a society, rather than just those who can afford it, particularly appeals to me. This system is particularly susceptable to inefficient use of resources and manpower however......... Capitalism on the other hand seems to reject the notion that anybody in society has a responsibility to (for) the rest of the population. In this way capitalism can be viewed as quite isolationist. The main problem is that it is driven by profit, above all else. The view of the corporation is that if it doesn't make money, it isn't worth doing. This is why I reject the suggestion that capitalism is the solution to the world's problems. Corporations maximise their profits by exploiting the environment and/or the workforce. Any form of government control is frowned upon. A person in favour of capitalism would be happy to see most of the government's functions turned over to private corporations (AKA privatisation). Privatisation is really what upsets me. When a particular asset/company is owned by the government, it is in fact owned by everyone in that society. All of the profits of that asset/company are, in effect, given back to everyone. If the particular company makes a loss, it is no big deal as the asset/service is valuable to everyone. But when the asset/company is privitised, the only people who get the profits are those who are rich enought to invest in the company. The rest of the population gets nothing. They will most likely have to pay more to utilise an asset/service in order to maximise the shareholder's profits. The company is also not going to undertake any project which, all though it might be very beneficial to the society, will not make a profit. Everyone losses, except the minority that can afford shares.

3.479 75 2.552 90 2.379 40 2.085 100 1.964 2 1.740 45 1.601 80 1.546 4 1.514 6 1.510 8 1.404 30 1.374 50 1.337 2 1.276 4 1.239 16 The first column is the d-spacing in Angstroms, the second column is the intensities.

Sorry, I've been away for a couple of days (broken ribs and all ), i'll get on to it today.

I can give you this. Do you want the actually trace, or the peak positions and there intensities?

Your biology teacher should be ashamed of himself! The above arguement is quite often used by uneducated creationists to try and disprove evolution. Be VERY careful of your teacher's intentions here. The process of evolution works nothing like the analogy given above, and both you and your teacher should be able to see that. There are thousands and thousands of INTERMEDIATE steps from the primordial ooze to humans, we just didn't appear in an instant by the random mixing together of molecules. To say that we did is dishonest.

You don't actually have to do this experiment, conductivity at different temperatures (and concentrations) can be calculated using the Nernst Equation.

Race, no. Sex, possibly. Religion, no. Ability, absolutely yes!! I am a strong believer that affirmative action is just a form of discimination against those who are better qualified to do the job.

Don't be a fool. Read post #7.

It all bodes very badly for us westerners as human beings, doesn't it!