John Cuthber

What happened to our Saints is that people made up stories about them.

But science isn't about what Cavendish or Einstein believed- it's about the evidence. And the evidence is utterly unequivocal. We know that the CO2 released by mankind burning fuel is (at least a contributory) cause of global warming. And every time someone makes some counter-observation, it is shown not to be valid.

I can try. A vaccine for measles came on the market in 1963 The take-up of the vaccine must have been high and fast because this is what happened to the incidence of measles. The marked rise in the reported incidence of autism started around 1985. There is no possible explanation for the 20 year delay if the vaccine was the cause of the rise in autism.

Weird how that keeps happening with different nationalities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_and_naval_vessel_urban_legend

And don't forget that the whole "story" was kicked off by a bloke who was trying to sell his own company's rival product.

WTF has that got to do with the price of fish? Anyway, in reality (as opposed to wherever you are) here's what they make the lamp out of "Materials: *PET soda bottle *Galvanized Iron (GI) sheet *Rubber sealant *Bleach *Filtered Water" Do you see that PET is on the list there and the benzoquinone isn't? Did you somehow imagine that citing a spurious wiki page would suddenly make it look like you know what you are on about? Anyway, the easy way to get hold of HCl is- as with a lot of things- to buy it. However, giving toxic corrosive chemicals to people who clearly have't a clue what they are on about might not be thought a good idea.

Do you have any idea what you are on about? You started by saying "UV lamps are easy to make it is just an ordinary lamp through a filter." And that's simply not true. Then you tried to argue about it by pretending that a bit of glass magically makes visible light into UV. Then, to top it off you cite something which, since it's made from PET will do a damned good job of blocking UV. Even if any UV does manage to get through it's hardly " just an ordinary lamp ", it's the Sun. Wouldn't it be better if you just stopped talking nonsense?

I'm well aware of wood's glass, but, unless you have a lamp that emits UV in the first place (and most incandescent lamps don't) the filter won't add UV. They are bits of glass, and not endowed with magical powers. If the light from your lamp won't trigger the reaction between H2 an Cl2 than adding a filter will not help. Even if it emit contain enough UV to start the reaction, it will do it even better (i.e. from further away) without the filter.

Is four pages a record for a discussion where it is clear from the outset that the answer is just "yes"? EDIT to add I note with ironic amusement that my post made this a 5 page pointless debate.

I'd look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_variance but it depends on having some stats package to do all the arithmetic for you.

"UV lamps are easy to make it is just an ordinary lamp through a filter." Not really. The interesting problems with making a H2 +Cl2 burner are that, if you don't carry the heat away, the reaction is reversible and also the mixture of gases is horribly corrosive.

I'm not talking about infiltrating ISIS for the same reason that I don't talk about knitting- I don't know anything about it. On the other hand, if I did know about infiltrating ISIS I wouldn't talk about i for the same reason that you don't talk about Fight Club. I imagine everyone else here is in much the same position.

It's also noteworthy that thallium compounds are very poisonous. It's a fake.

"I really do want to know how to make this" "Start by learning to distinguish good ideas from money making scams, and nonsense."

"Surely Scots don't really want to break up the United Kingdom. It'd be like going back to the Middle Ages." What?! Just for a start, three were roughly two centuries after the middle ages and before the act of Union. "Who wants that? " According to the polls, a large (and growing) fraction of the voters. "Anyone can see that it's just part of a blatant conspiracy." Oh!, I see now- it's a conspiracy theory, so it doesn't have to make sense.

How would we know? You are the one with the box. What does it say?

Have you tried reading the box again? What else does it say?

"In case you've missed it, we live in a democracy and we get stuck with whatever we vote for". What I missed was a box on the ballot paper marked "coalition of two parties with opposed ideologies- to the extent that their usual names, Conservative and Liberal, are antonyms- who are both so keen to get into power that they got into bed together". First past the post isn't a very democratic system. And when the outcome is a government that wasn't even on any ballot paper there's not a lot of point trying to tell me it's a democracy. Broadly speaking, from the point of view of the North of the UK, we vote Labour and get Tory. "And then there's the currency. They say the Pound. So their plan is to use someone else's currency of which they'll have no control! How can that be separation?" Try going to an underdeveloped country. You will find that they use the US dollar for currency. It works just fine. There's no real reason why Scotland couldn't do something similar. They could also do what the Irish did and adopt a new currency, or they might choose to join the Euro.

"Hello everyone. I have a dream to get smarter and do not intent to quit on it." Good! Start by learning to distinguish good ideas from money making scams, and nonsense.

"I say both existed at the same time. Because did not God create the laws of science?" Got any evidence? And, as far as I know, that's not something Thor was ever said to have done.

That is "semantics" in the same way that it would be a "semantic" error to use the word "Italy" to describe the bits of the UK that are not Scotland. It is a semantic error, because semantics is the study of meaning and "England" doesn't mean what you used it for. However it's just plain wrong. In any event, it's not the use of the word that matters- it's the inability to count. Whatever you call the places, there is a difference between being one of 4 and being 1 of 2. And yes, it's silly. It was silly when you got it wrong in the first place, and it's not getting any less so while you try to pretend you got it right. Two simply isn't four. Meanwhile, back at the topic, What worries me is the fact that, without the Scots, the (whatever we are going to call the leftovers) will be stuck with a Tory government for the foreseeable future.

I thought you said one of 2 because you didn't realise it was one of 4.

You are about to be beaten to death by the Welsh.

or... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statues_(game)

I think there's a lot of overlap between "Corporations Going Too Far" together with their senior management and "a subset of particularly immoral republicans.".