John Cuthber

"I want to shape this product into an oval shape and be able to have it sit on hot 195 degree metal for at least 10 minutes without the bottom getting hot." If you put something on a piece of metal at 195C for ten minutes then it is going to get hot.

This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism is certainly fascinating. It's a pity that this show http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hlkcq is no longer available. It's important to realise that metals like brass are easily recycled so broken clocks and such like would have been melted down as scrap. that might go some way to explaining why there are so few still around from those days.

Science has done the research. The concept of "race" has been largely discredited. So, the effect of the taboo was to delay proving the non- existence of something which nobody was researching. Not sure how that could have slowed medical science done at all.

Ask a fish.

"we did not any water, its already in aqueous solution when my teacher gave it to us.." It's already in solution. So the answer to my question was "there's a lot of water." So trying to account for the tiny amount of water present as water of hydration is pointless. Once it's in solution the water in the "2CuCl2∙2H2O(aq)" is meaningless- not least because all the water gets mixed up. What's actually present in the solution would be better described as [Cu(H2O)n]++ where n is probably about 5 or 6 Hydrates only really make sense as solids.

How much water is there in the beaker, compared to the amounts in the hydrates?

A coalition per se isn't a logical problem. We currently have a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives. A couple of minutes with a dictionary should have led them to realise that was a bad idea. I'd be happy to explain further but I think it's off topic enough. So, once more the point about "I think we would agree, a villain with a gun is more likely to kill than a villain without one." is that, for some reason, you don't see why that's a good reason to not let the villains have the guns. Since you can't identify the villains (and loonies) in advance, the only practical way to achieve that desirable state of affairs is to not give anyone guns. It works quite well- you mentioned the loonies with a machete killing some guy in London. They were subsequently stopped by a well regulated militia called the police. As I understand it, nobody else was harmed. The "alleged" attackers are under arrest and so, not only will they answer for their crimes, but there's a reasonable chance that we will find out who convinced them that such an attack was a good idea. That's likely to help prevent further, similar attacks. Do you think that would have happened in a country where lots of people had guns? It's particularly telling to look at what did happen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account

You are obviously wrong and nothing you can possibly say will ever change my mind about this.

The government is a coalition between two parties with nothing in common except a desire for power. And, since you only get to vote for one party, nobody voted for both; therefore nobody voted for the government.

I agree that the riot police's involvement is worrying- I think it's related to the current government who don't seem too concerned about the will of the people. (In case you are wondering, strictly speaking, nobody did vote them in) It's not by right that I tell you that a gun in your house is more likely to kill someone you love than a villain. It's because that's what the numbers say. and It's, again, disappointing, that you feel some sort of armed struggle is "inevitable".

Nope. Do you realise that there's a difference between chemistry and wishful thinking?

I'd also like to know who the "baffled" scientists are.

"Maybe if your neighbors come knocking on your door with pitchforks wanting to steal your shit and rape your woman, sure... You have a better chance against them if you have some sort of arsenal," And don't forget that you decided to let them have an arsenal too: bigger than yours if they happen to have the money...

If it's cold enough then atmospheric pressure is enough to get it to freeze (at about -259C).

The point I made was that it was better not to vote in a tyrannical or dictatorial government. "When you said "If it comes to a revolution, you may have a point", did you mean before or after the revolution?" As I have already pointed out, if it were to come to a revolution in the US the army would win. Of course, I think that they know the difference between right and wrong so they would side with the people rather than the tyrants. I'm a little disappointed that you have so little faith in them that you think your would need your own guns. If you don't trust the army, why did you let them have guns? "I think you said that if it comes to a revolution then, yes, we'd best be armed for it. Maybe you didn't mean that at all." If you look, you will see that I didn't say that It's the last of your stawmen that I'm bothering to point out. Let me know if you plan to come back with any valid points. "Please give me that curtsy for clarity." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/curtsy Still, if you absolutely must have an answer that says "before or after" then the answer is before. A long time before, long enough that they can be trained and experienced. Like the army. Or, do you somehow feel that you can do a better job of defending the interests of the people of the US than the US army ? (For the record, I said army, I don't wish to exclude the other military forces and the police etc. It's just that your system is a bit complicated with things like the national guard, so I'm using "army" in a very general sense)

If you can still see it, what do you think they were trying to achieve? Seriously, It's NASA. They could fake an image perfectly well. Most people would be fooled if they just replaced the current image with one from last year or somethign. If NASA had wanted to hide this, you wouldn't be able to see it. Is your argument that they tried to censor it, but failed or what? BTW, you can tell NASA always tell the truth: their name is in ALL CAPS.

The units are important for another reason. Imagine you take your pulley to the moon. Same masses, but different forces.

What are the units of mass and what are the units of force?

What method?

"At the present time science would say wait and study more." No it doesn't, the scientific consensus on climate change is very robust. "Why worry?" Because the free market gave us VHS tapes even though Betamax was a better system.

Tertiary amines are traditional, but I'm not sure they will help here. High dilution techniques might.

"Yes, we'll arm ourselves after the revolution. That makes all kinds of sense" No it doesn't, but you are the only one who said it, so either you are talking nonsenses or it's another strawman. It really would be better if you stopped doing that. "I don't think I've ever voted for tyrannical government, so I'm going to ignore that slight." someone did. Unfortunately English doesn't distinguish You plural from you singular. However, as only one of the interpretations makes sense I wonder why you chose the other. "I don't think I've ever voted for a tax cut "for the rich", and I'm not sure what a "wage slave" is. You've veered way off topic." might it be better to find out what I mean before saying it's off-topic? "It's actually done the opposite the last couple of elections," No it hasn't http://my.firedoglake.com/cenkuygur/tag/ronald-reagan/

False dichotomy.

If it comes to a revolution, you may have a point. But for now, it would be better to stop voting for a tyrannically self-serving government. Banning guns may make a revolution more difficult but not as much as banning critical thinking does. Voting for more tax cuts for the rich leaves the majority as wage slaves. And yet US politics keeps on veering to the right.

It's getting late but. OK, Tyranny, rather than dictatorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority This sort of thing Chattel slavery is only one kind. If you investigate the legal stuctures and physical circumstances of feudal England, you will discover other kinds. risks turning into a "no true Scotsman" argument. If you define serfdom as slavery then serfs are slaves; if you don't then they aren't. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/dialogue/the-slave-route/modern-forms-of-slavery/ Still doesn't include prisoners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act tells me that the government (as opposed to individuals within it) is not bound that law (which makes it a bit pointless) "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." "The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law."