John Cuthber

The simple answer is to ask your friend for actual evidence that "magic" exists. They won't find any. Since it doesn't exist, the question of what makes it is meaningless.

You could use a hydraulic motor to drive an ordinary compressor.

Negative income tax would work just fine, and I think it's probably more efficient than the current system. I see you think that this group "Those that don't chose to work can't really complain. " is significant. Do you realise that most of the people in the dole queues are looking for work, but can't find it? Why punish them for something outside their control?

No, you know someone who says they can do it for a few dollars.

Check your arithmetic.

Actually, I think what he needs is a boss who recognises what's important. stringwithclientsnameinit doesn't really need camel case AlongPenistoneRoad does.

Well it would work... If the only tool you have is a hammer, you see all problems as nails. I suspect that the OP has a text editor of some sort which he knows how to use. If he's running on a minimalist Linux box without any sort of word processor then I guess SED's the way to go. Perhaps we should set up some sort of bench-marking challenge to find out which approach is best for a variety of input data and then see what type of data he's using, then we could design a system based on optimising some combination of the characteristics whichever options work best. Did you like the XKCD cartoon?

No. In the limit, they will have exactly the same money- but it will have been paid to the as wages, rather than as dole. It doesn't cost me any more I pay less tax , but more for goods. (BTW, that's a "small government" thing, so I'd expect you to be in favour). "If increasing minimum wages provides so many benefits, why not set the minimum wage at $100.00 per hour? " Were you not paying attention? The difference is that the government wouldn't be paying dole to people on $100 an hour.# Nor would they be topping up anyone's $5 per hour to $100 per hour. The point I am making is about the problem with a minimum wage set below a living wage in a society where people are not allowed to starve in the street. (A model that works quite well in most of the Western world)

I like this game. ...wayman's fancy dress costume. ...ball cocktail glass in their hand ...faluing attitude ...land tartan kilt ...lighter pen.

Well, maybe. If you raise the minimum wage then the people in these low wage industries need fewer subsidies from the government. I can choose to pay them either more dole (via my taxes) , or a better wage (via higher prices). I know which I'd prefer, and I suspect they would agree. Better yet, set up a genuinely progressive tax system and then get the shareholders to pay. That idea is only "a joke" because people think it is, and I suspect they think that because they have been essentially lied to by the media (owned by those shareholders an their friends)

One reasonable option would be to use search and replace in just about any text editor. Let's face it, humans sometimes struggle to parse these things- that's why we use camel case. Anyone from South Yorkshire will probably read alongpenistoneroad differently from most other folk. Expecting a machine to do it is unreasonable. Also, beware of this http://xkcd.com/974/

Have you met this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson%E2%80%93Hasselbalch_equation

Never forget the penismightierthanthesword. It's nice when they are out to get her out together. I will stop before I drive you all to MansLaughter There are lots of these ambiguities. The real solution is to use CamelCase when you type the things in the first place.

Downloading the dictionary wouldn't help. "The", "rapist", and "therapist" are all in the dictionary. Using a word processor's S+R function might be the easiest way.

Just a quick observation from "across the pond". We only adopted a minimum wage relatively recently. When it was proposed, the Right wing opposition at the time said that it would destroy small businesses, cripple the economy and generate plagues of frogs- in the same way they complain always complain about anything that might help people. Obviously it turned out they were completely wrong. The interesting point about a minimum wage is that, if you set it low enough, it's actually a way to take money from middle earners and hand it to the rich (at least in most societies) . If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on then people earning it will still need benefits from the state to survive. So, if I set up a factory that makes widgets, but I sell them at a low price I can only "afford" to pay my staff minimum wage. If I charged an economically viable price for the widgets (one where i could afford to pay a living wage) I'd go bankrupt. But, because of the state picking up the difference between a living wage and the minimum wage ( the state pays them benefits of some sort), I can run my business and make an apparent small profit and pay myself a good salary. Why am I in a position to do this? Because I'm rich enough (or well enough connected-which is often the same thing) to set up a factory. I'm only getting a profit because middle earners are picking up the difference between the living wage and the minimum wage. It's the strangest thing, but since the Right worked this out, they dropped their opposition to a minimum wage- they just made sure it''s not enough to live on.

Good luck. How will it know if a variable is TheRapistsPhonenumber or TherapistsPhonenumber ?

I don't blame you- but it's still a better option than Sensei's caustic bird bath /"water feature" which dissolves any creature that lands in it. As I said, planting trees is the easy way to sequester carbon in the fairly long term (decades to centuries). Compost and peat production are likely to generate methane which is a potent greenhouse gas.

Sorry, wrong process http://www.nature.com/news/rock-s-power-to-mop-up-carbon-revisited-1.14560 Since nobody (except you) is talking about making magnesium metal, the rest of your post is irrelevant, though, for the record, you are still wrong about this " there will be more Sodium created than Magnesium". Strange as you may think, the process for making magnesium makes magnesium, rather than sodium- because they have the sense to largely separate them before they electrolyse the chloride. Did you really think that they "accidentally" made more sodium? Incidentally, you seem to have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I said " we generate most of our electricity from fossil fuels." and "That electricity is, in the real world, largely made by burning fossil fuels." while you pretend that I said "energy for electrolysis must be from burning fossil fuels". then go on to (correctly) say more or less what I said "UK electricity 38% is made from renewable energy source" Well, some is nuclear but 53% (i.e. most) is from fossil fuel http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html But it doesn't matter because the electrolytic process you propose does not actually sequester CO2. So, to summarise, OK I posted the wrong link- oops- sorry The correct link shows how you can do what you asked of me- use magnesium silicates to sequester CO2. Your idea about lakes of caustic (in addition to being a nightmare from a safety / environment point of view) is dead in the water because it doesn't actually sequester CO2 Not even if you can drive it from renewables. And then you wasted some time posting about the process for the production of metallic magnesium- which is interesting enough as a bit of industrial chemistry and vitally important in some high performance engineering- but it has Nothing to do with the issue. How's the self-censorship going?

The problem isn't farming; it's farmers. Or, if you prefer, the problem is money.

Tehn I hope that vastu shastra is less riddles with crooks charlatans than, for example, Feng shui.

"Is venison healthy?" No, it's dead. Eating venison might be less unhealthy than some other meat sources.

Since the expression is ambiguous, the correct response to being asked "What is 36 / 6(2+2+2) = ?" is "What do you mean?"

It's entirely possible that you don't.

Thanks for the clarification : it wasn't irony- you just don't understand chemistry.

OK, let's start with the easy one "come with any SINGLE idea to absorb CO2 gas from atmosphere, in such way, it will be stuck in newly created molecule (that's not organic like tree or plant). We're waiting patiently for your idea." http://theconversation.com/eco-cement-the-cheapest-carbon-sequestration-on-the-planet-10978 I'm not claiming it's original- but at least it's workable. " while you're supporting petroleum industry.." Nope, I'm supporting facing up to reality. At the moment we actually really burn a lot of fossil fuel to get convenient energy. If you want to use solar power to sequester carbon dioxide from the air, then there's a very simple way to do it. Plant trees where there are currently none (large swathes of exploited rain forest would be a good place to start) I wonder if you are just annoyed that I pointed out that there's no "magic" source of NaOH. Yes you can make it, but in the real world, today, doing so generates a lot of CO2 That's because today (no matter what might happen in the future) we generate most of our electricity from fossil fuels. So today your "solution" would create more CO2 than it absorbs. In the real world in which we live (rather than some renewable powered utopia) we don't have energy to spare for making caustic. So, you have provided a "solution" for a fairy-tail world. Just to make things more absurd, in that imaginary world, the problem would be self-solving- because we wouldn't need fossil fuels, and we would be more or less carbon neutral.. If we did live in that world, the OP's question would be irrelevant. Sadly, as a species, we have yet to adopt a sensible approach to energy use. And meanwhile, back to the chemistry. Yes, you can indeed make NaOH from salt- and they do. The side products are chlorine and hydrogen. And the fate of the chlorine is - eventually- to become chloride (zero- and positive- oxidation states of chlorine are unstable in the biosphere). Similarly, the fate of the hydrogen is to produce hydrogen ions. So, the long term net fate of those elements is to form HCl. Industrially, that's also the commonest fate for the two gases as produced by the NaOH manufacturing plant- They burn the Cl2 and H2 together to make HCl (and they recover some of the energy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_chloride#Direct_synthesis OK, so your "CO2 free" method for making NaOH produces HCl as a by-product, in a 1 for 1 mole ratio. Essentially you use a lot of (CO2 -intensive, electrical,) energy to reverse the usual reaction. NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O Some of the Cl2 is tapped off for other uses; for example PVC and other halogenated organics. In the long run, those are hydrolysed in the biosphere (or burned in refuse incinerators) and the Chlorine is released as HCl. So, all the chloride from the salt you used gets turned into HCl. Eventually, that ends up back in the environment and dissolves into water. That water will contain carbonates and bicarbonates (all sea, river and ground water does). Adding acid (like HCl) to that water releases CO2 So, in the end, the HCl from your "not actually going to exist in this world" "solution" ends up producing CO2 And, by a "remarkable coincidence"- it ends up producing half a mole of CO2 for each mole of NaOH- exactly the same as the CO2 that the NaOH can absorb. Let's summarise that. You say we should use energy to turn salt into NaOH, (with CO2 as an inevitable long term by-product) and then use the NaOH to absorb that CO2. (Obviously, that's pointless) In doing so you will need electricity. That electricity is, in the real world, largely made by burning fossil fuels. To do this on a "grand" scale, you need lots of electricity- so you need to burn lots of fossil fuel. You propose to burn lots of fossil fuels- to achieve nothing. And yet you say "this thread is pro-ecologic, while you're supporting petroleum industry.." My view is don't piss about with lakes of caustic- stop wasting energy and start using renewables. Well, perhaps you could "rethink your own attitude to the subject, ". Perhaps you might even go in for some "self-censorship"