OldChemE

That is a fun way to play chess. I don't play much chess anymore, but when I was in High School (1964) my friends and I played hexagonal chess on a board very similar to what you show. I don't remember all the rules, and don't know who invented it-- but it was fun and challenging.

You need to read what you respond to more carefully before you reply. My statement contains the phrase "any more" which makes your reply inconsistent with what I said. I was comparing men and women, not asserting that work experience is not of value.

I don't think work history necessarily correlates to being a good mother any more than it correlates to men being good fathers.

Ask yourself how the polar portions of the two molecules can interact with the components in an acidic solution

In order for some trait to prove an evolutionary advantage/disadvantage it must promote/inhibit successful reproduction. It seems to me that in order to assert that sodomy has some evolutionary effect (in the absence of statistics) you would need to establish that it affects successful reproduction, as opposed to being something humans/animals do aside from other 'normal' reproductive activities.

Ladies and gentlemen. What follows DOES NOT represent my views-- but I saw it on another forum and had just never seen anything like it before. Just thought some might be interested in reading it. Here it is: (Author NOT revealed) Do you believe in global warming? Climate change? I used to think it was a complete hoax. Lately I am becoming more convinced it is happening. I used to believe that Man was incapable of having any effect on the environment. I now believe that he or she can cause the weather to change for the better or worse. What does this have to do with deep theological discussion you ask? Let me explain. I still believe that global warming has nothing to do with the car or truck I drive, the amount of fossil fuel I use or the amount of water I put on my lawn. It doesn’t have anything to do with the way I heat of cool my house. It has everything with how we humans, God’s children, behave. How well we keep His commandments. How well we love one another. How well we treat each other. My study of scripture convinces me more each day that man’s behavior has great effect on his environment. If I follow Jesus’ example and live as He taught, am I going to avoid all the climate change going on around me? No, but if I follow God’s commandments and live as I should, any pain or suffering I am called on to endure will be a brief moment in eternity. If I live as Christ taught, it will affect others. If we all live as Christ taught, it will affect the environment.

There are such places, but very dependent on local conditions. Case in point is Pacific Grove, California (south end of Monterey Bay). The town is situated out on a peninsula and is pretty much only a bedroom community. Because it is on a peninsula with no nearby industry, and no through-roads, it has surprisingly clean air, good water and year-round moderate temperatures. It also has nearby world class medical facilities largely supported by the rich people living in nearby Pebble Beach. This is the sort of place you should be looking for if you really believe it promotes longevity (although personally I don't-- which is why I moved from Pacific Grove to northern Nevada where I could better afford to live).

My College roommate, A Chemistry major, studied the metabolism aspects of alcohol. He made the claim that different effects of different alcoholic beverages was due in large part to carbonation, which he said facilitated rapid transport of alcohol within the body. I don't know the details, but he claimed that, because of this, mixed cocktails, carbonated wines and beer tended to make a person drunk faster than was the case with wine or straight vodka, whiskey, etc.

What is a CME? The first time you use a TLA in a post you should define it, just for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the TLA. (TLA: Three Letter Acronym)

When I want to know a square root, I just pull my old slide rule from my desk (it uses the Log method).

I've always been fascinated by the approach of the ancient Greeks-- Their top tinkers were truly philosophers, but not scientists. That is, they developed their ideas by thought and reasoning (such as Geometry) but did very little experimentation-- no scientific method. Aristotle, if I recall correctly, had some very interesting thoughts on motion, but never verified by experiment (and he was wrong).

I too remember better that which I write down. After watching my students work and noting who learned and remembered the most, I came to the conclusion that remembering, for most people, requires that the brain process the information in some form. Reading alone does not seem to cause most people to process the information. Read-interpret-write seems to cause sufficient processing to make information stick better.

This is a very important topic-- but I think one key aspect is that charity, per se, is not necessarily good (for reasons mentioned above). What is important is that Charity supported should be charity that in fact does good in both the short and long term. For example, if a person cannot support themselves, should you (1) give them money or (2) help them find a job so that they can support themselves (the old give a man a fish or teach a man to fish analogy). Similarly, should you give money to the charity that provably helps its clients or to the one that makes a heart-rending appeal but largely lines the pockets of its founders?

I hardly think wikipedia can be referenced as a source for the proper definition of a religious sect that existed thousands of years before the various contributors wrote their wikipedia article, and which even existed for an extended period before the current versions of the religious texts were decided by a committee of scholars. Those that try to dictate what constitutes 'being a Christian' are merely in a labeling exercise, not a source of fact. The various subsets of Christian Churches willingly allow participants to self-identify. This, and the fact that we have so many variations of Christian doctrine (Protestant, Baptist, Fundamentalist, etc, etc, etc), clearly indicates that the Christian Church recognizes shades of belief.

For 30+ years portions of our society have been teaching their children that if they try hard enough they can be anything they want-- which totally ignores the reality of talent and ability. This makes some people unable to cope with failure or even being "average." For some people, it seems, being 30 and not yet rich and famous is very, very, depressing.

When I retired from engineering I took a job as the Science Teacher fora small Christian High School. One of the concessions I got from the school was that we would teach science using the best available secular textbooks-- No religious science books. At the next 'Parents Night' one of the parents asked me point blank how I could reconcile Science and religion. This was my answer: "You believe God created the World. In my classes the students will learn how the world works. In Religion class your students should learn how to make ethical use of what Science provides." The parents accepted this and we had no later issues.

Given the huge amount of historical information available about so many topics in our modern age, I think the REAL curiosity would be if these sorts of alignments of data DIDN'T happen.

3D games are not like reality-- but close. Computer programming does not produce any effect that is truly random-- while reality does. Computers can be programmed to simulate random behavior sufficient to fool the users, but code still follows rules.

My wife lives, the other dies. Aside from the fact that I love my wife,I took a marriage vow to protect her. The marriage vow overrules all other considerations. Always

Look up "Activity Series of the Elements"

You are falling into a mental trap by thinking of circumference/diameter as two rational numbers. Consider this: If the diameter is 1, the circumference is 1 times pi, which is irrational. If the diameter is 2, the circumference is 2 times pi-- which is still irrational. In fact, in any circle, if you could measure it to an infinite number of decimal places, you would discover that one of those two measurements is an irrational number. Dividing two numbers, one of which is irrational, gives you an irrational result.

I'm wondering what the OP means by spirituality-- since very religious book I know of, particularly the Bible, clearly condones eating meat.

Look at the units associated with Avogadro's number, and you should be able to write a much simpler equation that directly converts grams to atoms. When you have a problem involving different units of measure, you can use the units to determine the appropriate equation. Avogadro's number is atoms/mole, atomic weight is grams/mole, sample size is grams. How could you multiply or divide these three sets of units in order to have a result which is in units of atoms? Do this and you will have your answer.

Photic reflex?

Wrong, unfortunately. 0 divided by 0 is undefined. Why? you might ask? The rule in math is that anything divided by itself is 1. This would argue that 0/0=1. However, zero has peculiar properties that prevent this. For example, 16/16 = 1, but 16 = 4 x 4, so 16/16 is the same as 4x4/4x4. but 4/4 = 1, so 4x4/4x4 = 1 x 1 = 1, and 16/16 = 1. The point of this example is that if we divide a non-zero number by itself, we always get an answer of 1, even if we factor the number. Now, consider 0/0. 50 x 0 = 0, and 1 x 0 = 0, so 0/0 could be 50x0/1x0. if 0/0=1, then this version of 0/0 = 50. The point here is that the answer changes depending on what numbers were multiplied to make zero. This, then, defeats mathematics, which is why the result you are seeking is "undefined" in mathematics. Attempting to divide any number by zero, even zero itself, creates inconsistencies in mathematics, and is not permitted.