John Cuthber

I take it that you are unaware that penicillin (still by far the most widely used antibiotic) doesn't actually kill bacteria. It stops them reproducing, but it doesn't actually kill them. So the immune system still has to do that. Your unevinced assertion about "I mean that by rushing to massacre the invader with outside help you're not allowing the body to develop the antibodies that will stop the next invasion, and so what you're developing is a dependency on outside help, which is not advisable." just doesn't hold water. "I'm not being deliberately misleading. I repeat that "in my case most episodes of influenza (or whatever gives you the said symptoms) now last for about half an hour or so". Six decades of frequent battles leave you with an impressive collection of antibodies, especially if you've kept away from antibiotics for one half of that period." A couple of points Firstly, since influenza is caused by a virus the antibiotics can't touch it. Secondly, have you heard what happens when a bunch of people who will never have met any antibiotics come across a new strain of flu? It's not pretty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

Yes. It will never work.

Do you have the concentration of the stock solution of BB? "max absorbency at wavelength 595 nm concentration of stock solution: 10mg/L results are: 1st tube: .332 "

"I would theorize that in most cases communism leads to oppression." On what basis? There has never been a true communist state to act as an example of what it might become. "Hey, we need you to farm/build/dig/etc because you have the ability and we all are providing for your needs." If they are providing for all his needs then that includes time for him to pursue his artistic endeavours.

That's the problem. Communism doesn't work with people because they are selfish.

"I didn't need to have a Ph.D. to discover the solution: just stop using antibiotics, which weaken your immunological system and make it lazy. " Bollocks; colds were around before antibiotics and there's no evidence they make the immune system lazy (whatever that might mean). "Specifically, it will instantly desensitize the common, small and painful mouth ulcers called "aphthae" or "thrush", caused by a herpes type of virus" Bollocks. Thrush is caused by a fungus and while aphthae may be caused by a virus, they are just as likely to be bacterial. " If you keep putting salt on the sore it will go away quickly" If you don't it will too. Salt may reduce the duration. In my experience vodka on a bit of cotton wool works too. More or less any antibacterial is in with a chance here; perhaps someone would like to try honey. "Why does nobody seem to know about this? " One possibility is that they think it's bollocks. " In my case most episodes of influenza now last for about half an hour or so. " If that was even close to true you would get the Nobel prize for medicine. What is much more likely is that, like me, you have the good fortune to have a robust immune system that throws off the infection without much illness.

"Communism is inherently intrusive and micromanages people's affairs." Unless you accept that people can work out for themselves what society needs and how they can help to provide that. So, the statement isn't absolutely true. It's provided without any evidence... It seems the problem is that people don't know what communism is; they fear things that get labelled as communism by those with a political agenda.

The reaction with iodine might not have a nice well defined stoichiometry, but it should work. If all you want to know is " do we still have cyanoborohydride present in this stuff" and the stuff doesn't destroy iodine then the answer is no. You can see the colour of iodine in the presence of starch with very small quantities, so you can see the effect of very small amounts of reducing agents too. The big problem would be deciding if you still have cyanide, borohydride, cyanoborohydride, or some mixture. The other problem would be what else is present and does it mess things up?

"I'm positive that once society stops forcing males of all ages to treat girls preferentially over boys, that anger-retaliation rape will become close to non-existent." Well, since society doesn't do that (though it does try to encourage both sexes to treat all people equally) that problem must be solved. Face it, if society really did that, then women would be better paid than men for a start. You seem to have got your facts backwards.

HAs anyone here ever bothered to learn to read wingdings?

"Cathedral builders acted more out of faith than financial interest in their contributions to the construction of these great monuments." I'm getting bored of asking Marat for evidence. http://xkcd.com/285/ There are records of the wages of the stonemasons etc.

You can cross out #3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypofluorous_acid

Not my field, but my guess is they like it for the same reason the blasters like it; it's cheap. If it's bit damp it will still make smoke (with a little added steam). It won't be as fast or vigorous- but who cares?

You are muddling two issues; proof and action. Speaking purely hypothetically, A baby who dies before they have any chance to do wrong will (at least according to some religions) enter heaven.Though they have no faith. As you day, a Demo, who knows that God exists and therefore has faith doesn't get to heaven. A saint who has faith and acts properly gets to heaven. A sinner ends up in hell in spite of his belief. So, it seems that faith has nothing much to do with it. It's actions that make the difference. Faith without acts is useless. Proof can not have a lot to do with it. Unless you are a demon, you don't have proof.

And they think that is their "God given" right and not anyone else's.

I guess there are two ways to look at this. Resurrecting a thread from 2006 is old news, but then again, it was proved back in Galileo's time so a few more years hardly matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

"why do they hate communism" Because they haven't tried it (properly).

Any discussion of human behaviour that doesn't take up a whole book is probably simplistic but it seems fair to assume that a lot of rape is more to do with power than sex. Not to put too fine a point on it, no man was ever prosecuted for raping his hand; sex isn't hard to find. Sure, it's more fun in company but that's not a requirement. However, whatever the motivation, in a fight between a 100 pound wrestler and a 140 pound wrestler, who would you bet on to win?

A more plausible reason for at least some of that disparity is difference in reporting. Or how about straightforward biology? In general men are stronger than women so on the whole women who want to commit rape are going to lose the fight. In the relatively rare case of a woman being physically able to overpower a man in this way you have to realise that if the bloke isn't interested, he won't get an erection, and without physical entry there is, in law, no rape. How in the name of whatever did anyone not realise that? The only thing stupider than the original question is Marat's bizarre answer.

"In my opinion, having a child with someone should be the ultimate expression of love." In a good many cases, it's a mistake due to too much beer. Do you think you can change that?

The purpose of science is to change, the purpose of religion is to stay the same.

It's not just pressure, you have to cool it too. Have a look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation

Do you know that fans don't cool the air?

Lets just say that it would be very ironic if, while following the instruction to tidy the shelf, you pulled a muscle. If that injury were investigated properly the investigation would look for a risk benefit analysis of the original instruction. If that were missing then whoever sent it out would look rather foolish.