MattC

I'm suprised there was only one typo in my solution. I would have removed it regardless, though - better to just give a hint, like you did. Ah, speaking of typos ... may want to edit that equation fast!

He did say it was in preparation for an exam, but I agree, it's not wise to help others too much with their homework. That would attract the wrong crowd.

oh. What error was it? I'm a little tipsy, to be honest. Had a long day at work and I'm having a beer and reading scienceforums to relax.

The k represents a constant, so treat it as one. That's my suggestion. 1000e^kt=740e^0.08t You can solve this for "t", right? I can, and here's my hint: the answer has in the denominator the variable "k."

further, even in a vacuum there are differences. If you have a feather and an iron weight, in no atmosphere, falling toward a planet surface, the two will appear to fall at the same rate. This is because the difference in the mass of the two is insignificant compared to their mass-difference relative to the planet. Nevertheless, the iron weight has more mass and thus more gravity, and therefor the planet and the iron will approach each other more rapidly than the planet and the feather. The thing is, because the iron contributes an amount of gravitational, attractive force that is extremely tiny compared to the attractive force of the much more massive planet, the difference in the rates (feather vs iron weight) will be too small to measure without extremely precise and accurate tools. So, to conclude, there is a difference in the rate of fall between two objects of similar size but different mass, whether they fall in an atmosphere (where the difference can be very obvious) or in a vacuum (where, in the case of two objects of different mass falling toward a much, much larger body, like a planet, the difference is extremely difficult to detect. However, the attractive force of the planet (just the planets attractive force) on the two objects is , the same. In a vacuum, there is only a difference because the more massive falling object is also exerting a pull. If you take two objects of different mass and somehow prevent them from exerting a gravitational pull on the planet they are falling toward (in a vacuum), then there is no difference. This is because while there is more mass for the planet to pull on, in the more massive falling object than in the less massive falling object, the more massive falling object also has a greater resistence to a change in velocity, due to it's larger mass/greater inertia.

And two of them appear to be poorly thought out - it says that IE has lower system requirements, then goes on to list the requirements. IE has a significantly higher CPU requirement (For what little these minimum number requirements actually mean), and a significantly lower memory requirement. However, IE requires more memory than is listed - it is probably due to it being partially loaded at start up. Also, saying that it's wrong to say that Firefox is more secure, simply because it is not 100% secure, is idiotic logic (and transparantly motivated, in my appraisal, by more than a desire to spread the simple truth). Firefox would be as often and heavily exploited as IE, presumably, if as many people were using it (and if as many were trying to hack it), which just isn't happening as of yet. When it does, you can say they are equally unsecure. Until then, Firefox is more secure, and that's just all there is too it. Until then ... hmmm .. you'd need more than more users to bring security levels to par. You'd have to also increase dramatically the number of people who hate Firefox and want to see it ruined by bugs. That said, both browsers work great for me, though I prefer Firefox for a number of situations. IE is not as buggy as some make it out to be, but this guy seems to have a motive for bashing firefox ... otherwise, he wouldn't mislead (as in the case of the two "myths" I pointed out above) and use straw-person tactics (by saying that Firefox isn't the first with tabbed browsing - who ever said it was? All I've ever heard is that IE *doesn't* have it yet, which will still be true for a while yet).

I'm sorry, but it is a well documented fact that Bush cannot do math, and Rush Limbaugh is not a valid source for anything science related. Here's a snippet from the US government's Geological Survey department: "Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!" From this location: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html Jim_Newtron, or shall I call you "Tully_Beaver," or maybe "Allah_Sux," ... I don't believe that Herpguy is truly trying to tell you that Bush is the cause of any particular global environmental problems. Bush is merely the man in power now, but he represents a set of environmental politics that is a great cause for concern among scientists. I'm really curious, Jim/Tully/whatever, are you really this bad at reasoning, as your posts all seem to definitively demonstrate, or are you presenting these fallacious arguments with the intent that they be easy targets ... and this is all a very creative (though some would say annoying) way of presenting your position (which hopefully differs greatly from the position your posts imply)? I can't tell which it is, if it's either.

Tully, you should read take a debate class. You'll never prove anything to anyone (smart) going about it as you are now; your arguments are filled with flaws. I criticize people who drive SUVs. I ride my bike, run, walk, etc, and I do not jetski, own a four-wheeler, etc. Those ARE wasteful, just like SUVs. Maybe you've met a few hypocrites ... good for you (who cares?). Most people who criticize SUVs themselves do not own or use the toys you talk about. Certainly they own computers, though, and if you wanted to make a case for hypocracy, you should point that out, though you would still be walking on a thin line between putting forth a good, interesting, useful argument, and doing the pointless posting you are doing now. I have never met a person who criticized SUVs and yet owned a jetski, boat, or was even remotely interested in the car races. I'm sure such people exist, but this is part of the reason your arguments are NOT GOOD LOGIC and thus WRONG. If you want to make a good argument, stop trying to be tricky about it (you are failing utterly), and try being a little more intellectually honest. Here's how: I think people who criticize SUVs for being so wasteful are often hypocritical, as they use electricity to power their home lights, washers and driers, TVs (and TV is haaaaardly a necessity), and so on. Granted, 90% of SUVS (hint: here's the flaw in YOUR argument, one of many flaws, anyway) could be replaced by small cars and the owners would not suffer at all, whereas you could not take away 90% of the electrical appliances in the average home and still maintain the standard of living that we expect. That point aside, people who criticize SUVs are hypocritical because they themselves could invariably be doing *more* than they already are to conserve the quality of our environment, by consuming less. Now, here's a counter argument to your "arguments" (though I think it's been well established, in polite posts, many times already, that your arguments do not qualify as legitament arguments): Yes, SUVs are wasteful. Yes, boats and other recreational vehicles are wasteful. However, just because two things are bad, does not mean we should not criticize one or the other, it merely means that we should be criticizing both. In other words, it sounds to me like you know enough already to know that instead of criticizing people who criticize SUVs, you should JOIN with them in criticizing SUVs and ALSO criticize other things that should be discussed. Now, let me quote you and speculate some: But if you did and you were giving people shit for driving an SUV because they are "wasting fuel" you would be a ....hypocrite? You met someone... who criticized SUVs, right? Someone who is a hypocrite, right? Who has dirtbikes, maybe? Ok, fine, you met a hypocrite. I met a black man, once, and he was uneducated. Does that mean black people are dumb? No, it means I met a dumb one, and the others are just the same as everyone else - a mixed bag. You met some hypocrites. Get over it - I don't know where you live, but here in California, where I live, the people who criticize SUVs don't dirt bike, or water ski, or jet ski, or whatever. They bike to the store to buy their groceries, or at least own a small car and use that instead, and while EVERYONE is a little wasteful, that doesn't lend any strength to your argument. Yes, people here have been harsh to you - that is because you presented an argument, it was shot down, and yet you insisted that you were still right. Read the posts that came after yours. Read them again and again and again, until you get why you were wrong. Learn from this!

Yes, it does.

I have used 1.5 since public release on 5 different computers and I have experienced no bugs at all.

Buame refers to the specific gravity, or density, of a solution. I'd suggest double checking that. Off hand I'd say the reactions you're doing with HCL aren't terribly likely to be very hazardous, if you observe basic safety principles (excellent ventilation, eye wear, gloves). Personally, I would strongly advise against any of this until you have thoroughly researched the experiments you are doing (which you may already be doing) and know exactly what products may be formed. I'd also use reagents that are as pure as possible, as a contamination that you don't factor in could result in some poisonous gas or cargenogenic compound being produced (which is why I'd say it's vital that you build some sort of fume hood, or have a fan and a window nearby). btw, muriatic acid, as far as I know, is just another name for HCl. I'd guess that your HCl solution is just HCL and water. Presumably, you are mixing only three things - a metal, hcl, and water, and if there is nothing else, I'd say you're pretty safe. However, you mentioned an odor. H2 gas is odorless. I don't know what you're smelling, but it may be smart to be cautious.

I know you know this, jdurg, but for any others reading this who don't, he means adsorbed, not absorbed.

The three nuclei in ozone are equally electronegative. There is no partial positive or negative charge. It also does not rotate the plane of light.

The expansion of the sun is a very slow thing. It'll take billions of years. Venus could change in a few million, presumably, if the right conditions occur. Personally, I believe that long before the sun expands out enough to cause problems, humans will be able to terraform planets like that, using methods not even dreamed about today. Just a guess, though! As for life today, organisms on earth can survive at very high temperatures, so life in certain parts of the atmosphere of venus, while (in my opinion) unlikely, may be possible. The surface, of course, is so hot that no life (as we know it) could survive.

Well, assuming you are talking about + or - degrees temperature of the airbed, and assuming this is a homework question (it does sound like one), here's your hint: PV=NRT (for an ideal gas - no gasses are ideal, but they all pretty much obey this rule, with only slight amounts of error) Pressure X Volume = NumberMolecules X R (gas constant - 8.31 in this case) X temperature That is the equation. The number of molecules is constant. The value R is constant. The volume varies, but by the time you get it almost fully inflated, it's pretty much statis - at least, it doesn't change much, and isn't important. If you increase T, what does P have to do, for the equation to still work? If you decrease it, what must T do, then? That's your hint! Good luck!

I am not sure, but I think the lindlar catalyst mechanism may be something else. Otherwise, using H2 gas and a lindlar catalyst on an alkyne would result in a combination of alkenes and alkanes; supposidely it results in alkenes, which makes me think that the catalyst works well on triple bonds, but not double bonds.

I was reading about RFID's and Richard Stallman's incident with the UN, and now I am curious as to whether or not aluminum foil can actually block radio frequencies. If it cannot, how about tin? If we wanted to be absolutely certain no one was reading an RFID tag, unless we wanted them to, we could make a lead-sheathed wallet of sorts, but this would be a little cumbersome.

When an Alkyne reacts with H2 gas over a Lindlar catalyst, the reaction stops (according to what I have read, and what my professor has said) at the alkene - it does not proceed to the alkane, whereas with a catalyist like PtO2, it will reduce the element all the way down to an alkane (at least, in some cases, as I understand it). Is the difference in the mechanism the electophilic nature of the catalyst? Is a Lindlar catalyst electrophilic enough to attract a triple bond, but not enough to lock onto a double bond? The sources I have read talk about "poisoning" the catalyst, and this confuses me. Is it a different catalyst (a "weakened" palladium?) that nevertheless acts as a catalyst should (and is not changed at all in the process), or is something happening to the catalyist itself, reducing it's ability to function? The latter is how I have heard it described, but I suspect I may have misunderstood. Thank you in advance for any help!

You seem to know your stuff, Zyncod! Good point, you're right - while viruses do have "antigens" on them, that's really just the part, as you said, that antibodies recognize, and the functional groups that define a virus may be separate from the antigens. Furthermore, antigens can exist on bacteria and other substances, not just viruses. Correct me if I'm wrong, so I don't spread any misinformation!

Unfortunately, power plants and other unpleasant, often heavily polluting industries are most often in poorer communities. Affluent people tend to be more organized, and more likely to complain if there is a proposal to put something dirty or ugly in their region. This seems to me to be a case of a relatively small number of wealthy people (in a relatively low population density region) complaining about having a form of clean power generation in their region, and if I am not misunderstanding the situation, I have no sympathy for them. Additionally, the pictures do not indicate that the windmills would be a significant part of the view. As for the arguments by Hailstorm ... well, I don't want to issue any personal attacks, but his/her position seems quite ignorant to me. When I read this: "What's the price difference for a waterfront/bluff view lot and somewhere else? Furthermore, the waterfront/bluff lots have houses BUILT AROUND VIEWING THE WATER. The other lots simply do not. I know many people who simply will not move somewhere where they lack an uninterrupted view of the water." I not help but laugh. You know people like that, do you? I know some people who refuse to eat with utensils that are not made of solid (not coated) gold and blessed by the pope. I have a few names for people like that, but I'll keep those names to myself. I can't help but find it ironic that he/she seems to think that everyone else here just *doesn't understand*, when in fact, the person who doesn't understand is Hailstorm. Ultimately, our society, and the world at large, is going to HAVE to utilize solar power (wind power is a form of solar power), unless we plan on wasting money on extracting usable energy from every last drop of coal or tar (and by wasting money, I mean wasting money - these forms of energy are efficent today, but that will change as we are forced to turn to less and less ideal, concentrated, and accessible sources.). In the process of the conversion from a fossil-fuel based energy system to a solar-powerd energy system, many, many sacrifices will need to be made. This sacrifice will not even enter into the history books, because the loss in property values that these affluent people will endure will only spark sympathy in the hearts of other rich people, and only because they themselves don't want to have to sacrifice anything. Ultimately, however, those who have more, will lose more - those who have less, have less to lose. I hardly feel any pity for the "burden" of being rich, in this case or in any other cases (as if there are many such burdens ... hah!). That said, it is absolutely the case that, in general, people who stand to lose money, will complain, and everyone else will be happy to have that much more electricity and that much less pollutions. The only compelling argument I have seen is that there may be ways of spending that money on existing infrastructure that will reduce pollution as much, possibly even more (in the short term). Yet these are not compelling to me - though I have no stock in the industry, I consider it in the best intrest of us all for the companies that produce these wind mills and solar panels and so on to make lots of money, to fund research, and hopefully to reduce the prices of these devices. I'd rather that happens sooner than later, as I suspect it will ease the transition.

I'll take that wager and raise you 4 hundreeeed ugelbugels! If you're man enough ....

Sounds fine to me, Sisyphus! When I think of viruses, I think of complex chemicals, not living organisms, but if you're going to define exactly why they are not "alive" the metabolism argument is an excellent one! On a similar note, I think you could make the argument that, at some point, the distinction between "living" and "nonliving" is arbitrary. After all, a bacteria is simply a more complex arrangement of chemicals, and a human is simply a still more complex arrangement of molecules. I've never seen any argument to suggest that a human has a soul (no scientific arguments, anyways), and without that or some other wild card, we're really just a hugely complex chemical factory. Even language is just a pattern carried on by the interaction of differnet chemical factories over time, no more meaningful, in a sense, than the haphazard and intricate path of an individual proton as, over time, it goes through various cycles as part of various atoms and molecules. But that's aside from the point. Frost Fang, that's a great idea, and I would bet anything that some creative chemist will some day help engineers develop a factory for viruses or similar compounds that will attack and hopefully eradicate at least some of the many viruses and bacteria that infect humans! Another idea in this vein that may prove interesting is modifying a virus that already exists so that it is able to infect and spread but does not cause the undesired symptoms of the original virus. If this virus is similar enough, the body could develop antibodies to it, and those antibodies may be effective against the original, more dangerous (unmodified) virus.

Send it sliding across an ice rink or frozen over lake! Toss it into 0 g space, let it drift for ages!

Double check this (or hopefully an expert will post) because I am NOT an expert in this field, but ... viruses are NOT alive - they do not have senses, and none, to my limited knowledge, have any mechanism of "sniffing" out cells, or even of moving - they do not have flagella or cilia or anything, they simply go where the wind takes them. A virus has a protein coat (or capsid as it is often called) and then single or double stranded DNA or RNA. It is basically a really complicated non-living chemical that just happens to have a structure that allows it to function as it does. A virus capsid is not smooth - it has functional groups and these react in particular ways. When a virus finds an appropriate cell (or rather, when it drifts up next to one, as they do not have a "will" to "find"), the protein coat fits like a lego piece, in a sense, into the cell wall. It is all just a complex chemical reaction - a virus only infects certain organisms for a number of reasons, one of which is that the capsid will only react with a certain combination of functional groups that appears only on it's target cells. So basically it's like a lego structure floating around, and when it hits something that fits it perfectly, it binds or reacts, and in the process it mechanically/chemically (as in, not via some living "will" or conscious "desire") inserts it's genetic code into the host cell, which is then reprogrammed to produce the virus. This is a bit of a simplification, but I personally like the lego analogy, as it stresses how un-life-like these reactions are. They are really complicated, but really it's like a machine that has been designed to react only with certain other pieces, and it's automated in a sense. So, to recap and specifically address your question: A cell has a cell wall, and that wall has various components, some of which are proteins (for instance, to allow the cell to take food into itself, or water, or whatever). Cells are very diverse, and a particular type of cell may have a chemical (lego) strucure on it's surface that is a very particular shape, and a virus that infects that cell will have a functional region on it's capsid that is just the right shape to infect that and only that cell (basically - some viruses may infect multiple types of cells, and may even be able to break into cells that they cannot infect - I don't know about that, though). If the virus, as it floats along, bumps into something else, it won't fit in that particular way, and if it reacts it is most likely going to react (chemically) in such a way as to destroy the virus. For instance, if a virus in water bumps into the chlorine used to disinfect drinking water, it will be denatured (the shape will be ruined/changed) and it will basically be inert (unable to infect cells).

oh wow, posting screwed up the orientation of my atoms and bonds. I suppose anyone who can answer this already knows what I'm talking about though, and doesn't need my silly diagrams.