John Cuthber

But CSI isn't science. Like Bond, it's entertainment.

Did you know that there's a version of Visual Basic (strictly VBA) tucked away in Excel? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee814737(v=office.14).aspx

It seems that CSI has a number of errors. http://www.angelfire.com/jazz/jboze3131/csifacts.htm

I'm guessing Commercial and Industrial, but I'm amused that Google interpreted "C+I" as Roman numerals and gave the answer CI

Or not, if it's molten or dissolved in something other than water. Aqueous is a word that is used to describe solutions: it means that they are solutions in water.

Does that mean you think all the Gadgets that Q made for James Bond are real and that bad guys can't ever shot straight?

Unless they decide to award a Nobel prize for talking gibberish like this "What we don't all know is what your point of confusion is and the point of me explaining what everyone ought to know as an answer to your poorly specified questions may eventually prompt you to explain whatever it is you misunderstand." , you can stop worrying. This "No what you've said, is that anything John Cuthber can't put a proper name to must be magic. By your faulty reasoning your own birth must have been magic since you were not named until you had been born." isn't rational, it's a strawman. I'm not concerned about the organism having a name- we can call it Peter: it will never know. But I'm concerned that it's only defined by having the property of eating cancer cells (and not other anaerobic bits of the body) in spite of the fact that such behaviour would be suicidal. It is pretty much by definition, non-existent. "Tell you what, let's assume that major pharmaceutical companies have the internet and the staff are allowed at work to browse this forum, shall we? " Good idea, because i'm sure that some of them will appreciate unintentional comedy too.

It's called whatever the scriptwriter wants. But it's not real. CSI is not a documentary.

Yes it would work.

I wonder if Kramer is going to postulate time travel as a way round that. otherwise it seems pretty watertight.

Reminds me of this joke dotted over the internet "There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra than on Alzheimer's research. This means that by 2030, there will be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them."

No it isn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking And There's no point telling me that anaerobic bacteria exist because we all know that. What doesn't exist is the bacterium you want. The one that only eats cancer cells. And the reason it wouldn't exists is because it would then die out. As I said, that would be rather silly of it. Basically, what you have said is "First we treat the patient with some magic stuff, then we use some other magic stuff, finally we use some magic stuff". Logically faultless; but completely useless. Spyman, thanks for the interesting info on the Nobel Foundation, but I don't see it being relevant to this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Th6ts_O7Jno

Not all chemicals can be melted. Not all chiral mixtures crystallize out as single isomers. The classic example- resolution of sodium ammonium tartrate by Pasteur only works at low temperatures- if the energy is high enough to essentially break all the bonds between molecules (i.e. to melt it) then the interactions that distinguish racemic crystals from individual isomers will be much smaller than the typical energy and so the separation won't work. It might work in a rather small number of cases. On the other hand, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_column_chromatography works quite well.

This "The bio-agent is selected with intention that the infection should establish itself in any anaerobic cores of cancer tumours and be supervised there while the infection attacks and in due course kills those cancerous body cells in any and all anaerobic tumour cores in the patients body." Is wishful thinking. You might as well say there's just one stage to the treatment. You take a drug "The bio-agent drug is selected with intention that the infection interaction should establish itself happen in any anaerobic cores of cancer tumours and be supervised there while the infection drug attacks and in due course kills those cancerous body cells in any and all anaerobic tumour cores in the patients patient's body. If such an organism as you propose actually existed, that would be great. ​But it won't- because it would be rather silly for it to make that choice.

Thank you for clarifying your lack of understanding of the logical fallacy called "argument from authority".

Firstly I like the qualification "on this site" Secondly, No problem- would you like me to call you one? This "to say my posts don't warrant good rep would be disingenuous because I know better. " ticks the box.

, perhaps you would like to offer some idea of how much light you actually get from some example system.

Really? If we don't do the investigation on which the luminosity depends, does it get brighter or duller? More realistically, perhaps you would like to offer some idea of how much light you actually get from some example system.

Shortly afterwards, the Pythagoreans invented the saucer.

One of the (not very original) names of that curve is the equiangular spiral. If you have heard of that and Google it, you get a lot of information about it. Unfortunately, my maths isn't very good. Can I get some credit for the particular case where = 90 degrees?

Get a grip. When you says "99% of numerology is based on healing the world, metaphysical cleansing and all other areas of human suffering." rather than it's based on nothing, you are implying that you believe it. It would be like saying "rainbows are caused by unicorns" then trying to pretend that you don't believe in unicorns. "Why I venture in these fields? Because To discover something is making sure no rocks are left un-turned." But those rocks have been turned and there's nothing there. "At best like it or not we have 9 billion people on this world with many interpretations for the use of numbers." LOL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population And, since this has absolutely nothing to do with chemistry, could someone move it please.

It doesn't imply that God doesn't exist. But it does show that you have no evidence for God.

Perhaps he didn't think he needed to mention the Antarctic because I had already done so. I had said "It is true that the Antarctic ice is growing at the moment. We know that, and we know why. http://www.washingto...-in-antarctica/ so it doesn't in any way detract from the basic point."

Thanks. I had a look and the first line is "This summer, Arctic sea ice loss was held in check by relatively cool and stormy conditions. As a result, 2013 saw substantially more ice at summer’s end, compared to last year’s record low extent. " So it looks like (in spite of a relatively good year) they accept that There was a record low of ice extent last year and they are working on a basis of ongoing loss of sea ice. Thanks for citing the evidence which proves my point. Up North, the sea ice is generally retreating year by year (except for last year- by some fluke).