John Cuthber

It's pretty unlikely that you have come up with an hypothesis about IQ that hasn't already been researched, published and argued about at great length on the web. But, if you have, and you post it here on a site which will time and date stamp it, you will always be able to prove that you thought of it first.

Not a problem; the average UK salary is £26500. Or are you going to accept that the average is meaningless in this context? In the UK riding on the pavement is illegal (though it's also very common)

"The first group kill plenty of children. " I think his point was that they save more than that- but feel free to condemn those guns too. "You can see what can happen without them all over South America and Africa and Asia. " And England, France Germany, Spain... "Most of the guns owned by my neighbors all my life existed year round as continual threats to some "bad man" " Did the bad man have a gun? Would you have preferred that he didn't?

Beer isn't a very efficient process for making alcohol. Efficiency isn't always the most important criterion. Being able to brew hydrogen from cow dung might be useful in some circumstances. If you wanted a hydrogen balloon to get you off your deserted island it might be a very useful thing to know about. But if you plan to do fusion, there are more practical ways to get hydrogen, and I doubt you could get much deuterium.

So, the guns owned and used by the US military do something useful- they deter war. And the guns owned by private citizens are pretty much irrelevant to that. And it's the second group which kill the children, and it's that group I'd advocate controlling. It's been laboured to death, but the chances of you using a gun to either threaten or kill some "bad man" are slim to non-existent (especially if you are not a criminal). However the chances of a gun in your house killing a loved on is rather higher- especially if there are kids about and you don't keep the guns locked up. And, as we seem to agree, a gun that's locked up isn't any use as defence. All of this has been rehashed several times at great length already in this thread. Re. "Now say you have a shield. Some one else has a gun, and they are trying to kill you. Your screwed, the end," Thanks form making my point for me. Guns are not a defensive weapon, they are an offensive one. I remind you that you said "Originally they were used as a defense against invading enemies. ". and you now seem to have realised that they are not a defensive item Of course there's the fact that you are wrong (as already pointed out- and had you never heard of body armour?) bit it's beside the point.

Ironically, it might be possible to "harvest" heat from roads because they are generally slightly warmer than their surroundings. But that's because they are black and soak up heat from the sun. Putting cars on them reduces this solar gain. It's almost certainly not worth the investment.

Can I just check on something? Was anybody's blood present apart from yours? You say "I just want to know if there was any infected blood in the liquid, would it have been able to survive and ..." Why on earth would there be? Anyway, this is clearly heading into the territory of " this is a web page and can't give medical advice- if you have any concerns please consult a physician"

The problems I saw with the scrap of the test that I tried was that it would unfairly discriminate against someone unfamiliar with US coinage. Others have, it seems, reported similar problems. That's a badly constructed test. I did go to university, but, while my chemistry degree course told me a lot about nickel, it didn't tell me how many cents are in one. I also know people who went to college but would "fail" that test because they are dyslexic or dyscalculic.

Most people consider a shield to be a defensive item, and a gun as an offensive one. As for "They are intended to save people. " I'm reminded of the quote "the idea of war is not to die for your country- but to make damned sure that the other man dies for his". " In modern day they are used to prevent the deaths of millions of people every year. " You seem to have overlooked the 20 or so a day which form the topic here; they don't get saved. More importantly, who is saved by guns, and how? Are you talking about people whose country isn't invaded because they have an army? Because that's got nothing to do with the topic of gun control. Nobody is suggesting that the armed forces shouldn't be armed. "Now a gun is no use in self defence if it doesn't kill, but its also no use if you don't have one." It's also no use if it is safely locked up. But unless it's locked up, the kids (who are the topic of the thread) can get at it. Have you read the thread- a lot of these things have already been raised.

Try harder No it hasn't

Among other things, it's a test of whether you think that people who speak English are, in fact, American. (Because there's no way of deducing , from first principles how many cents there are in a nickel. There are other bits of American vernacular too) It will, therefore be biassed against people who grew up elsewhere. Using it in the UK would probably get you into trouble under the equality act. As far as I can tell, the purpose of the test is to make money for the people who administer it.

There are certainly bugs that produce hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biohydrogen#Bacterial_biohydrogen And there are related bugs that produce isotopic enrichment http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/667738 Why do you want to know?

Since it seems to eat potatoes I presume it evolved in the same area that they did ,which would be South America.

1 Yes, it';s that simple. 2 Because if there was a shortage of O2 some of the carbon would get converted to CO, or other things so you would get less CO2.

Triton X inactivates the 'flu virus http://jcm.asm.org/content/48/3/928.full I suspect it would also "kill" HIV.

"First of all, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Now the fact about guns being for a hunting rather then militia is not exactly a valid argument. If you go back to the time of the revolutionary war and the civil war " I can't and nor can you. What happened back then is history. I'd rather focus on what's happening today where people draft vacuous arguments that guns are OK because they are not the only thing that kills people (and that was the essence of your point- alcohol kills people too so we shouldn't advocate gun control.) Well, as I pointed out, there's a difference (which you chose to ignore). Drinks are not actually intended to kill people. Guns, on the other hand, are intended to kill people. If they were not able to kill people, the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply to them because there's no point in having a militia whose guns won't kill. It's good to know we agree on this bit "your gun that detects people wouldn't in fact, be able to be protected by the constitution. " That was my point. The gun lobby wants to have its cake and eat it. they say " my guns aren't made for killing people" and "I have a right under the constitution to keep a gun" But the right to keep a gun only applies (as we both agree) to guns that kill people- so their first claim must have been false or their second one was false. Take your pick. If you buy a gun for self defence the same point applies- it's no use if it doesn't kill. That makes it clearly distinct from other things , like beer and cars, which sometimes kill, but are not designed to. So there are two answers to your post. You made a logical fallacy by suggesting that we should not ban guns because we don't ban alcohol . You failed to spot the difference of intention between guns and alcohol. Incidentally, where did this "people have decided that the fathers actually hid a SECERT message in the constitution about making it hard or impossible to own guns. " come from- did you dream it up or what? Who are the "people" you refer to?

The obvious answer is that it's a false dilemma- you can restrict both- and most governments do. But a better answer is because drinks are not designed to kill people- but guns are. Whenever I have raised that in the past people have sad that their guns are not designed for killing people. I think they are mistaken. Think about it; imagine some "magic" trick produces a gun that can be used for target shooting or hunting, but can't be used to kill people; if you point it at a person, it won't fire. It magically knows and won't fire, even if a ricochet would hit someone. I'm not saying it's possible or practical- but just imagine that it did somehow exist. I'd have a very hard time arguing against ownership of that sort of gun for anyone who wanted one. (You could , of course, still use one for vandalism- but there are so man things you can break stuff with that adding one more barely matters) The interesting thing about this non-killing gun is that it wouldn't be protected under the 2nd amendment. It couldn't be used by a militia. So, when people tell me that their guns are for target shooting and hunting, that's fine- except that most guns were not made for that (most, after all, are made for the military- and they aren't playing sports with them). The only guns that the 2nd amendment enshrines are guns that are those designed to kill people (at least as a secondary use). And yet, that's why they say they should be allowed to keep their guns which are not used for that.

Insanity quotient?

It's complicated. Boiling point is a good clue, but most of the time you are not talking about a material near to its boiling point. So you need to also know how the vapour pressure varies with temperature. You can get a reasonable approximation for that from this sort of thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation If you know the vapour pressure and the heat of evaporation then you can get an idea of which of two solvents is likely to be more volatile. In essence for things like making paint or varnish, they compare evaporation rate empirically. . http://marron-co.com/marron/PAINT%20STANDARD/ASTM%20%20PAINTS/0601/D3539.pdf

Just a thought; would you have lost marks for saying it was Charles Dodgson? The point to remember about an IQ is that it is a measure of how well you do in IQ tests. that's all- nothing more; nothing less.

At least one dog has a vastly better vocabulary than most people would believe. Chaser can't talk, but she plainly remembers names of toys

An exoskeleton made from chitin.

This bit, for example, simply isn't true. "Proteins are made from right handed amino acids but the only one simulated in the lab is left-handed,". It's perfectly possible to make either version in the lab.

Very close to 1 molar. Almost all of them are sulphate ions. To a good approximation the hydroxide ion concentration will be the same as it s in pure water, which is about 10^-7 Molar.

Yesterday I ate food because i was hungry. today i will eat food because I am hungry. Tomorrow, too, I will do the same thing for the same reason. Do you seriously expect me not to?