John Cuthber

There is at least some evidence that probiotics survive in the gut somewhere, so you don't need to do anything special to get them to do that (whether or not it's a good idea or just marketing hype is another issue.) If you have some medical condition then it's unlikely that probiotics will be the best available treatment and so you should see a doctor. If you are part of the "worried well" and are taking them "just in case they help" then it hardly matters- the evidence that they work is thin, but they are cheap and almost certainly harmless. Or you might prefer to eat yoghurt from time to time.

On a related note, if the data on your computer is important enough to warrant any sort of encryption, then you should use another computer for the sort of web surfing that might lead you to sites that download malware onto your machine. Where I work we have two computer networks and two computers each, for that sort of reason (actually the other way round- they don't want the S/W we write screwing up the important network, but the principle is that same). However, I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the websites I visit might reset my computer's clock without asking me.

I'm willing to bet on no, they are not. Capryllic acid gets its name from the same root as Capricorn- the goat. Like Capric and caproic acids they are found in milk- particularly goats' milk. Lactobacillus thrives in milk (including goats' milk) so it must be tolerant of those fatty acids.

Then you should have no difficulty with demonstrating one. Please do so.

"Eve" works for random.org.

I'm not certain but I'm fairly sure that, if you travel directly East or West along a line of latitude, you don't experience a Coriolis force.

" fairly small amount of energy and natural gas resources(single digits for both of the last two) " I suspect that one or two percent of the world's energy use isn't what most people would call "small". I agree it's much smaller than, for example, transport, but it's still a lot. However, back at the topic. There's nothing to stop someone using alternating Roundup ready maize and alfalfa for example.

"straight up" is not very well defined in this case.

I think the effect is real and the best term I can come up with for it is this http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blitz-spirit though it seems a bit outdated

From the point of view of anyone who understood fire, tree goats would look like convenience food.

You could try vinegar. If the top is jammed by decomposed bleaching powder then that might dissolve.

You can pretty much do it with one symbol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

If, after "pages and days" people are misunderstanding your claim, perhaps it's because you didn't make it clear in the first place.

The effect has been known for nearly 200 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspard-Gustave_de_Coriolis and it's not an explanation of the Earth's rotation.

Do you think it is likely that there is enough information there to answer the question?

Being invisible from more than one point of view is also a problem.

I'd need to read it again carefully a few times, but could it be a false dichotomy? "The Defendant argues that, because he hasn't entered his plea yet, adding new charges is premature." It's not a case of you can either enter a plea or add new charges. You can do both

Since water is practically incompressible, the volume flows in and out are pretty much the same.

Poe's law is named after Poe. Godwin's law is named after Godwin. I Guess this is Overtone's law. Any objections? (You may wish to note that not all "laws" are always followed.)

Also, the tighter the corners are, the more energy is lost by the beam as it goes round them. The circular path is the least inefficient in that regard.

As fas as I understand what you are saying, it would already be covered here. The first example you cite - about gaps in the fossil record- is blatant strawmanning and, as a logical fallacy, is banned here by section 2 part 4 of the site's rules. The others seem to be a misunderstanding of the nature of science- it's always uncertain, but it's the best we have. Scientific truths are based on (always limited) studies of the issues. The science stands until someone comes up with evidence that they are wrong. just saying "they might be wrong" is redundant. Of course they might. We get stacks of people saying "I have a new theory that's better than relativity", and they never manage to show what's wrong with relativity in the first place. Eventually, the Mods block the thread citing section 2 parts 8 or 10.

We all know what you want. That is not the same thing as saying why you think it will happen. you want the sodium nitrate and the potassium carbonate to swap partners. I'd like to walk into a bar with all my money in a bag and for Bill Gates (the very rich man who runs Microsoft) to walk into the same bar with all his money in a bag and for us both to swap money bags. But there's no reason why it would happen (even if we did both carry all our money in bags into the same bar.) Why do you think the swap would happen? The real problem is that you don't have 2 chemicals- you have 5. Water, nitrate ions carbonate ions, sodium ions and potassium ions. It's easy to remove the water- boil it off. But why do you think the other 4 would arrange themselves in the way you want?

This isn't a flippant question If they are not wrong then there's no issue to discuss. If they are wrong, than you are making a judgement about them and you are, by your own claim, wrong. So, which is it?

That would make it the other hand then- like he said. Anyway, in most cases this is one reason why it's impossible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count

you missed my point "If I ... I will get..." Why do you think you will get them? Just because that's what you want?