John Cuthber

"But government protects the lazy and worthless to no end," http://xkcd.com/285/

Look up the origins of the word "testify"

"say you have a menthol tablet for sore throat say 160mg in weight, containing 2mg of menthol, 0.1mg of sodium usnat and sorbitol artificial sweetener - would it kill spermatozoa? " That would rather depend on what you were doing. If you were using it to treat a sore throat then, in the only circumstances where it would have an opportunity to act as a spermicide, it wouldn't matter if it did or not. It certainly wouldn't be prudent to assume that it is spermicidal since the "cost" of getting it wrong is rather high. In respect of the other obvious possibility, I will just say "other lubricants are available"

"American law draws it at immediate and unquestionable incitement to physical danger to persons nearby, such as 'shouting fire in a crowded theater.' " This planet is crowded, and lots of people keep shouting "fire!".

"I don't want to change the game at all, " Then don't. It's complete bull anyway- they don't seem to remember to add the cost of the electricity. Since ordinary light bulbs and CFL light bulbs both have well documented life expectations they are both clear examples of built in obsolescence. Why mention this? All the govt. has done is insist you change from one form of PO to another.

Just to be on the safe side, make him count slower, say once a minute.

In my country burning a copy of the Koran would (probably) be viewed as "behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace" and,as such would be illegal. There are already rules about free speech; not least, the ones about libel. This has nothing to do with declaring the law subordinate to Islam, or to anything else. So, it seems that the narrator of the video is making a simple mistake in saying that some politician who says " I wish we could stop people doing this" is rewriting the parts of the constitution that refer to religion.

"anyone who's actually seen Wishmaster would know, that isn't an option anyway. " According to the wiki article the film Wishmaster" grossed about $15M If they each paid a dollar (which would be cheap) then 15 million people went to see it. There are roughly 6 billion on the planet. For the benefit of the roughly 99.75% of the population who didn't see the film, could you explain the rules of this riddle fully. Thanks

Not all matter expands when it gets warmer. Water has the unusual property of expanding when it freezes.

"For the sake of fairness, here are a few links as to *WHY* all of us on the forum are so cynical when it comes to this question." And the fact that it was posted by the guy who started this http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56035-the-sun-is-giving-birth-to-planets/page__pid__600091__st__80#entry600091

"2. the inventions of CT scan and MRI that was not there before." Such things are helpful in getting an earlier diagnosis. That usually means easier and cheaper treatment. The UK health service has MRI machines; they will only have been purchased after a cost benefit analysis showed that they would pay for themselves. But I think you are right about the others.

I'm about to go to the pub so I can't be bothered, at the moment, to look up the name that economists give to the cost of something that isn't included in the price. For example it is said that we benefit from high energy use because we burn lots of fuel. The people in low lying areas get their homes flooded by rising sea levels. (ignore the issue of whether or not that's true- it's just an illustration). In a true "free market" the cost of fuel would include the cost of compensating those people, but it doesn't. If it did then we wouldn't burn as much. Part of the "hidden" cost of cheap light bulbs is a longer unemployment line, another part is a lot of dead people in China due to poor working conditions.

"John C; It's not using the bulb that's objectionable, but being told we have NO CHOICE. " Did you read the whole of my post? What did you make of the bit that said "I remember a similar reaction to the legislation that required drivers to wear seatbelts and to the decision to ban smoking in public places (etc...)."?

The brightness of the light will fall when the mixture is cold- it might not look so good. I don't know if CO2 will mess up the reaction but (as long as you don't try to do it in a sealed container) I don't think it will do any harm. Try it on a small scale first.

A couple of points Marat, I draw your attention to the reply I gave earlier. Victom, Never mind internal affairs- go to your doctor, then the police.

Yes, at least around here you are. You could ask again here. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Apparently, like mine, most of the people in your nation are too obstinate and stupid to choose to save their own money (and the environment) by using CFLs. I remember a similar reaction to the legislation that required drivers to wear seatbelts and to the decision to ban smoking in public places (etc...). Once the legislation guarantees a good market the manufacturers can invest in production equipment and so the price drops making them an even better bet.

My computer monitor has three phosphors which emit red, green and blue. I can do what I like with the software, but it will never emit yellow light. What you need is not data on the sensitivity of the eye but data on visible contrast on PC screens. That will probably vary with make, condition, settings etc. Good luck.

In the context of this thread, that's quite a challenge.

So it's a very good business strategy.

Oops! You are quite right. you would get an answer in horsepower seconds. I get muddled when I use unfamiliar units.

"yes..religion affect to happiness. when we have nothing" It's God's fault. "What is your attitude toward Atheism? Accepting Dislike Extreme dislike Murderous hate" You missed out boundless love as an option. I presume this is due to personal bias on your part. A questionnaire designed to elicit information should be written in such a way as to avoid that sort of bias. Since this one doesn't, the data from it will be of questionable value.

By the time it reaches the roof, you already have a significant amount of it and it is mixed with air. If you ignite that you will have an explosion.

Well, the simple answer first You can use any set of units and, with the right ones you would get an answer in horsepopwer. The number you get from E=MC2 depends on the units you use. If you use feet per second and (I think) a rather odd unit of mass called the slug then you get the answer in foot pounds per second. A horsepower is 550 foot pounds per second, so you divide by 550 to get the answer in horsepower. Normally we use the SI units in science. We measure distance in metres, mass in kilograms and time in seconds. The speed of light is about 300,000,000 metres per second and so the square of that is about 90,000,000,000,000,000 metres squared per second squared (a very odd unit, but never mind) For your lump of stuff weighing 3.2 Kg the energy comes out at 288,000,000,000,000,000 kilogram metres squared per second. The nice thing about the SI set of units is that they are "consistent". That means that the answer automatically comes out in the right units. (without having to use weird units like the slug and then dividing by 550) The SI unit of energy is the Joule so the energy is 288,000,000,000,000,000 Joules. A joule of energy is roughly equal to the energy released by dropping a baseball of a table. The answer to the question why do we square the speed of light is a bit trickier. The simple answer is that it takes more energy to get a car from 10 MPH to 20 than it does to get it from 0 to 10 even though the change in speed is the same. So energy is not simply proportional to the speed, it increases faster than the speed. It turns out that the energy increases as the square of the speed. This might help explain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy Anyway, it turns out that energy is related to the square of the speed and the same happens with E=MC2 You might want to get hold of a copy of the book called "Why does E=MC2?"

At the risk of being sued, I think the common consensus is that they are a weird cult. Here's an example of their belief. "According to Scientology, when a person dies — or, in Scientology terms, when a thetan abandons its physical body — they go to a "landing station" on the planet Venus, where the thetan is re-implanted and told lies about its past life and its next life. The Venusians take the thetan, "capsule" it, and send it back to Earth to be dumped into the ocean off the coast of California. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetan