John Cuthber

The plastic is made of big molecules- too big to be particularly toxic. So "hot enough to be toxic" means hot enough to break the molecules down into smaller bits. The laptop case was made by melting the plastic and forcing it into a mould. The molecules didn't break down- or the stuff would fall apart. So, we can deduce that temperatures high enough to melt the plastic and make it runny enough to mould it are not "hot enough to be toxic". you are pretty much safe as long as the case does not melt. If it does that then you have a different problem.

It would be good if Hamas changed their charter. On the other hand, perhaps it would be good if Israel changed their president, It just doesn't help when he says things like this "there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.” Not relinquishing security control west of the Jordan, it should be emphasized, means not giving a Palestinian entity full sovereignty there. It means not acceding to Mahmoud Abbas’s demands, to Barack Obama’s demands, to the international community’s demands. From http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-finally-speaks-his-mind/ (and remember, this is recent and current, unlike the Hamas Charter).

The Bible is just words written on paper. It can't prove anything, because they could have chosen to write different words.. There are many mistakes in the Bible.

Yes they do, overtly. Have you seem what the Republicans think of "critical thinking"?

"Will computers be affected by the EU's ban on powerful home electronics?"No. Page 20 article 15 para 2 c Computers are already made to be fairly efficient- not because it keeps the hippies happy, but because it stops them burning up.

"I need to decide what is the university that is the most successful and popular in research on the energy field. " Why would they let you in?

Often, what we feel is not logical.

"The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave them the power" Or In 1996, they gave themselves the power...

As has been pointed out, it only matters if the laws are good. Here in the UK there is a minimum wage. But it isn't enough to live on. So, (almost) anyone who earns it is also on state handouts of some sort. Which means that the employer can perfectly legally pay starvation wages so he earns a profit (even though, in principle, his business should run at a loss because it can't afford to pay a living wage). He gets all the cash + status of being a company boss. The taxpayer gets to pay for that. But the average tax payer doesn't have enough money to set up a business; you need to be rich to do that. So it's a way to get money from taxpayers to rich people. It was initially opposed by the Tories, our right wing party, but is now part of their policy. I wonder why? If the minimum wage is enough to live on, it's a good thing. If not, it's a subsidy for the rich, at the expense of the middle class. You might ask why we didn't vote them out. well, it's tricky- all our politicians are Right wing. At the last election the New Labour party (no longer new; never was Labour) got thrown out. The two other parties formed a coalition. Their names are the Conservatives and the Liberals. Someone needs to get them a dictionary. And I'd like to see a lot more detail before I answered Studiot's question. In particular, I'd like to know if the top floor was "the boardroom" and so all its profits were paper; or if it was the cafe, and it made all its money from knackered shoppers.

Are you familiar with the so called "Schroedinger's cat" experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

the word "moorhen" might cover different birds in different countries. But if we are talking about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_moorhen then the red beak is a give-away- it can see green light or that beak would look the same as a white one. Presumably it's ignoring the laser for some other reason, one possible explanation is that it's already hidden in the bushes and that's the best defensive trick it knows. On a tangentially related note I recently heard of an exchange between a teenage kid and an angler. Angler "Go away! you are scaring the fish". Kid "Scaring them? So what? you plan to kill them."

"I think wealthy people are focus on accumulating all the wealth they can. So long as the wealthy are not overtly breaking the law wealth accumulation isn't a bad thing. " I disagree. A wealthy individual (or corporation) that pays very poor wages is a bad thing but, in dong so they can accumulate more wealth.

A few years ago I went to the college's celebration of its 500 th anniversary. It hadn't changed that much in 30 years. The world of Oxford entrance was very competitive then. The way to distinguish yourself was to be a better academic than the other candidates. There are cutting edge universities, they would have no difficulty asking questions that no candidate could expect to answer. They ask slightly less difficult questions, and very few of the would-be entrants can answer the questions. That's who they let in.

It's certainly well documented that the polarisation of an emitted photon isn't (always) random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depolarization_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_anisotropy The fluorescence lifetimes of the europium complex they were using is about a millisecond. That's long enough for the electron to go round the entire lab, never mind the atom.

Stupidity is often excused if you feel you have no alternative. Presumably that's why you are prepared to accept the Israelis' stupidity in this matter. Also, from the point of view of those voting for them, they were not terrorists, but freedom fighters. Re. the objections, OK, fair enough, but the split seems a bit arbitrary to me. You muddled the charter and the constitution, You muddled the current policies with historic ones and You muddled Koran with the Hadith. Lets hope your vacation clears the cobwebs.

I think figures 9 and 10 here are instructive. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html It's not "corporations" going to far, it's greedy bastards going too far. Bosses are being paid several hundred times the average pay. Is it credible that you couldn't replace the CEO of most companies by a panel of a dozen or so of the middle ranking employees, just as effectively, and much more cheaply? If you could do that (and I think you almost always could) then to maximise corporate efficiency, you should do it. They don't- so it's not "Corporate efficiency" or "shareholder return" that's driving this; it's greedy bosses.

The point remains. Though the elections were far from prefect, they were not bad enough to discard, even if we don't like the outcome. Hamas won. And that's because a lot of people voted for them. So, once again, if many or most of the voters thought Hamas was a good idea, they must have been in a pretty rough spot. Their enemy is not Hamas, but whoever put them in that spot. Also, "that doesn't diminish our rights to not like the outcome or react acoordingly, such as not legitimizing or recognizing the 'sh*ts', or by cutting aid or even by segregation like a wall." Yeah, that will really help. And "I did note that both of your cited objections... " As far as I can tell, only one did. The other pointed out that many external observers thought the elections went quite well. Are you getting muddled again?

There were certainly problems with the election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006 For example, "In the lead-up to the elections, Israel launched on 26 September 2005 a campaign of arrest against PLC members. 450 members of Hamas were detained, mostly involved in the 2006 PLC elections. The majority of them were kept in administrative detention for different periods. In the election period, 15 PLC members were captured and held as political prisoners. During the elections, the Israeli authorities banned the candidates from holding election campaigns inside Jerusalem. Rallies and public meetings were prohibited. Also, the Jerusalem identity cards of some PLC members were revoked. The Carter Center, which monitored the elections, criticised the detentions of persons who "are guilty of nothing more than winning a parliamentary seat in an open and honest election"." But, on the whole it went well "After polls closed, officials and observers called the vote "peaceful"; Edward McMillan-Scott, the British Conservative head of the European Parliament's monitoring team described the polls as "extremely professional, in line with international standards, free, transparent and without violence". His colleague, Italian Communist MEP Luisa Morgantini said there was "a very professional attitude, competence and respect for the rules."[20][21] " And Hamas won. The vote is (as with all polls) questionable in parts but why do you doubt that it is "at least partly legitimate." Is it because you don't like the outcome?

You may find it interesting to note that the direction in which a photon is emitted may depend on whether or not there is a mirror nearby. This also affects the emission half- life. http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/emag/pubs/pa_thesis.pdf

What's your point? It's not as if I said the elections were entirely legitimate. I said "However they are a bunch of shits who were (more or less) elected.". Incidentally, you may find this informative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Current_status_of_the_Charter "Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal indicated to Robert Pastor, senior adviser to the Carter Center, that the Charter is "a piece of history and no longer relevant, " So it's accepted that their old policy of the destruction of Israel is no longer valid. It hasn't been their current policy since (at least) 2010) when that statement was made. Why did you cite it?

"Is it okay to be immunized multiple times." In general, yes. Having been immunized does not stop you being "naturally" exposed to the infection again, and that doesn't do you any harm. Being "artificially" exposed to it won't be very different.

So to start things off, what effects are there on the body when moving at 300 miles per hour?" None. Compared to my cousin who lives near the equator, my speed differs from his by rather more than 300 MPH.

Nope, I did not. what I said (quite clearly I thought) was "There's little if any doubt that Hamas are a bunch of shits." And I pointed out that, if you find yourself in a position where Hamas look good, your enemy is the people who put you in that position. You made some spurious comments about Hitler whose "election" was roughly as dubious as Hamas'. I repeated my point. "my point is that the retributions from WW1 were not imposed by Germany's friends. The people who forced the Palestinians out of much of their land were not the Palestinians' friends." and you ignored it. Would you care to try again?

Actually, it doesn't quite. This is a fairly typical YT vid of a building being demolished by a series of explosions. You can hear each bang. Now that's no great shock- explosions are loud. Now listen to the soundtrack of the collapse of WTC7 No series of bangs. No controlled demolition. The assertion has been assailed.

my point is that the retributions from WW1 were not imposed by Germany's friends. The people who forced the Palestinians out of much of their land were not the Palestinians' friends.