John Cuthber

And you don't see that as insane? Weird! The shooting was at a college so it's likely that many of the victims will have been college kids. Are you somehow going to say that it matters?

It looks like you are right. That should be "5 lines or fewer".

Last time I checked, French Canadians were not a race (for whatever meaning "race" has). So, perhaps we could get back to the topic of people who like guns pretending that their hobby has nothing to do with the deaths of yet another bunch of kids.

It's almost as if you don't understand that a word can have two meanings, depending on context.

"When people balked at providing universal health care, paid for by the government, the thing morphed into what we have today." How come the balked at the idea of having a healthcare system that cost half as much an delivered (for most of the) better outcome? Do you think that might be something to do with the media calling it communist? Now, would someone like to fill me in on the details of this "Left leaning" media? ".but that is almost like saying it would be better to kill children that..." Bollocks! if you can't see the difference between killing children, and planned parenthood then you have so clearly lost the point that there's no real reason to carry on the thread.

"Some, I was told, even found jail a safer and more reliable source of food and shelter and medical care, than living on the streets. " Well, that's as big a condemnation of society as any. Here's an interesting take on the "having a baby at 15, without a father to share in the keeping of the house and the raising of the children" issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect#Donohue_and_Levitt_study

Why do you think this is true? "...less Caucasians prefer to work in warmer climes" Do you have any actual evidence for that idea?

I wish I could find a reference to it. There's a psychology experiment where the lecturer hand out a few blank bits of paper to each class member. Then he puts a waste paper basket at th efront and asks the students to scrunch the paper into balls and throw it into the basket. If they do,they "win" the chance to move forward to a bench near the front. Of course, after a short while, those who were near the front, or lucky, get right to the front. Those who were unlucky or started out at the back don't do so well. the odd thing is that, if you ask the people why they ended up where they did, their replies depend strongly on where they end up. Those at the back point out that the set up wasn't fair and that the system was clearly set against them- they started out with a more difficult job, because they were near the back. Those who end up near the front say they got there through hard work and skill. Which group is objectively correct? do you understand why I'm reminded of that when I see you write things like this "Does not mean I am racist, if I blame the inhabitants of a poor area for their conduct, and if I expect them to hold up their end of the bargain in making the U.S. the best place in the world, to live." No, it doesn't mean you are racist- but it does strongly suggest that you have fallen victim to a well documented cognitive bias. By at least one measure the US is the second worst country to live in (if you start off poor) because you have the least chance of achieveing the so called "American dream" - and it's more a dream than a reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States#Comparisons_with_other_countries You might take some small comfort from the fact that my country is the one that does worst. Of course, this factor doesn't help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate and it brings us back to your question about institutional racism. If 9(as seems plausible) a black kid caught smoking dope gets into more trouble with the law than a white one, then that clearly affects his likelihood of being in jail and thus unable to pick up litter or fix windows.

I suspect there are something like 300,000,000 opinions.

A very common reason for renting is simply not having much money. So, if they are paying the landlord and it's his job to fix things- yet he doesn't- and they don't have the spare cash to pay for a new window, whose fault is that? Re. "To see trash, and broken windows, and filth in an area, tells me that the inhabitants don't care to keep it nice. " It tells me that perhaps they don't care, perhaps they tried, but have given up because they receive no help. perhaps they can't afford the time. It tells me lots of things, but it sure doesn't tell me what colour they are.

It's complicated, some metals mix- like tin and lead. Some don't- like zinc and lead. The Aluminium + Titanium phase diagram is rather complicated. http://www.calphad.com/titanium-aluminum.html

To a degree, you can do what you like, as long as you do the same thing to the samples as to the test calibration mixtures. Sonication might work, so might adding a little sodium hydroxide. But you need to make sure that you do two things Get some "stuff" from the bio-reactor and split it into two sub samples. Measure the biomass in the "official" way on one sample and make a spectrophotometric measurement of the other sub sample. Then do that for lots of samples so you get a spectrophotometric result for a range of different concentrations of biomass. That will give you a calibration which you can then use to measure biomass.

The Campaign money sugests he's not even sure to whom to donate- or he's backing both sides hoping that whoever wins, he can say "I helped you; you help me" From the age of 0 to let's say 16, you didn't take care of yourself. Once you retire you will be relying on some sort of pension to take care of you. That's a reasonable chunk of your life where you didn't "take care of yourself". But it misses the point, the kid with special needs is probably never going to take care of themselves- is that the parents' fault? Not all people are able to "take care of themselves" and you can judge a society by how it looks after those people. re. the "All geese are white" assertion. No, that's a strawman; it's not what I said. I said "And the usual meaning of..." but you are seeking to discredit me by pretending that I said "The invariable meaning of" Incidentally, though the point wasn't addressed to me. Re. " And in opposition to your point, how does institutional racism prevent a person from picking up the trash around their home?". One way would be if it stopped you seeing litter in white neighbourhoods Another would be if it paid for the local government to clean up litter in "rich" neighbourhoods. and Re "Just as I am responsible to NOT live up to KKK stereotypes, blacks are responsible to NOT live up to black stereotypes, to not be slaves, and kept humans. To NOT "get over on whitie", to NOT try and "get over on the man". " If, (and it's a mighty big "if") black and white people are acting those ways, to whom does it fall to start the process? The ones with money and power, or the ones who can't get a job?

If there's more than about 10% w/v salt in the water, yes. It will also lower the solubility of the eugenol in water

You say that as if one story overturns my point. Well, try reading what I said; I already pointed out that there were exceptions. On the other hand, if you think just one case makes a difference... http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/21/former-hedge-fund-manager-raises-price-of-aids-and-cancer-drug-from-13-50-to-750-5401926/ On a more important note, if you had a responsible society, the cost of the child's needs would be be picked up by the state and the home owner would not be out of pocket. Of course, you would need to have taxes and a state, would you see that as a problem?

Actually, if they got hold of it by exploiting others, it's not clear that it is theirs to spend rather than "ours". And the usual meaning of ", taken risk to obtain it, " seems to be to have risked other people's money to make huge profits for themselves. OK, there are exceptions but how often do the millionaires ever end up truly broke?

If you are extracting eugenol from water both solvents will work. One point to remember, eugenol is slightly denser than water and hexane is less dense. If you are unlucky, you will end up with a mixture that's the same density as water and it won't settle out. You can avoid that, and improve the extraction efficiency, by saturating the liquid with salt. Also, hexane has a huger boiling point, so it's more difficult to remove. You can improve the purity somewhat if you make use of the fact that eugenol will dissolve in dilute alkali.

Yes, but I doubt any two of us would come up with the same concept. So it's difficult to see what this would achieve. What were you hoping to find out?

Sounds rather like the 60s.

To me, this seems to be the most useful, and wisest comment in this thread.

And yet they don't. http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5?IR=T which might lead one to wonder what they are actually doing. Well, most people here already know my opinion on that but, just for the record. If you are rich enough to afford to pay cash to educate your children, pay for your healthcare and so on, you don't need a government to do it for you. So, it makes sense (at least- shortsightedly) for you to vote for a government that spends less on doing this and, consequently taxes you less. If, on the other hand, you don't have an income that lets you do those tings, you need help from others to do so. And, in that case, it makes sense to vote for a government that collects tax from those who are better off and uses it to help you. In every country I have heard of (and the US is one of them) those with not enough money outnumber those with lots. So the vote should always be in favour of a government that taxes the rich to provide services for the poor. And yet, (not just in the US) that doesn't happen. the US for example, has no real Left wing politicians (handy hint for Republicans- Obama is not a communist). And there must be some reason why people are voting against what would logically be their own interests. My hypothesis is simple; they get misinformed- deliberately. That's why the Media which is run by, and for, the very rich, is biassed in favour of keeping the populous uninformed (as witnessed by that report about fox). And it's also why the Republican party has deliberately tried to stifle education among the masses. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html It also tallies with their claim to be Christian. Allying with the church is a good way to look like the moralists even though their behaviour is fundamentally at odds with what most Christians today would accept as the ideal of Christianity. remember when pondering the question "what would Jesus do?",one of the answers is lose his temper and throw out the bankers. It also tallies with the idea that the Republicans are great believers in blaming the victims, and the unfortunate- for example immigrants- for the problems in the country. It's simplistic and contrafactual; but it's easy to do because you can exploit the innate xenophobia that people have. The actual studies show that immigrants are a net benefit to the country https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration Now, that's my view (from outside) about "What is America's biggest problem". It's being run by the rich for the rich and that's why the rich are getting richer and the poor are not. The workforce are becoming more productive- but they are not getting better paid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png No, of course, I might be wrong. If I'm wrong then there must be some other explanation for these facts The Republicans explicitly want to reduce the effectiveness of education in fields where it might lead people to question authority. They run "news" media that are biassed in favour of their position, to the point of being misleading or dishonest They win elections even though their behaviour is counter to the needs and wants of most voters. They fail to address the inequality of wealth, and then blame the resulting difficulties on others. They are anti immigration, even though that's bad for the economy. Perhaps someone could provide an alternative explanation for that list.

Where did you get this bit from? "and never will" Certainly, no scientist would claim that. That's essentially the whole of the distinction between science and religion.

Nobody said you deleted it.You said it was deleted.

Bye. But just for the record, did you consider that your outstandingly conceited view that "I had a long answer to this but the "universe" decided you would not comprehend with your "rational mind" so it was deleted. To me it shows you do not yet understand the universe, you may understand every measurement/process but you do not understand the "Universe". we all view the universe different, yes i follow the science, but for many years I have viewed the universe through optics, which enabled me a view, few see or comprehend." was the reason for the neg rep point, and that it was you who decided to juxtapose it with news of your friend's death?

But those were Christian values. Genesis 1:27 tells us "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." And, since the local population didn't look like us, there were not "man" in the eyes of the church. So they fitted into the previous line in Genesis " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Man clearly had dominion over the locals who must have been some other sort of creature. And then, of course, there's the slavery bit. Perfectly in keeping with Christian values. Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.