John Cuthber

Did you do the experiment? If so, what happened?

If half of what is said here is true then it just got a bit more interesting http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Sex-accusers-bragged-about-conquest/articleshow/7068149.cms

FeCl3 can be extracted from solutions in conc HCl with ether. Arthur, note the use of the past tense as in " i dissolved the MnO2". This makes it a bit tricky to wash.

Not all "If Then" statements are laws. This is just a matter of negotiation between two parties. It's no different from the manager of a company saying to the workforce "if you complete this much work then you will get a bonus". To count as a law it needs to be generalised; Assange's position is unique. "Furthermore, Assange seems to hold the US responsible for Sweden persecuting him for alleged sex crimes" Right or wrong, that's not unreasonable- you have to wonder why the Swedish authorities "changed their minds"; and the timing looks suspicious. If he "holds hostage the national security of the American people ... over 300M people. " then that's a negotiating position he can take. He can, for example, now just release things that make the US govt. look dumb as a bag of squirrels and keep the moral high ground because he didn't affect security. Perhaps the US politicians should have thought of that earlier.

I think he was referring to extradition as clumsy (which it is IMO)

It is, what is technically called "bloody difficult" to get a lot of radiation that's absorbed by nitrogen. It has no IR absorption spectrum and no microwave absorption spectrum. It doesn't absorb in the near IR, the visible or the near UV. In fact it only starts to absorb in the UV at very short wavelengths. At those wavelengths oxygen does a much better job of absorbing the radiation and is converted reasonably efficiently into ozone which is poisonous. There might be some selective absorptions somewhere in the Xray region of the EM spectrum but who cares? Monochromatic Xrays are so hard to make that you could use the waste heat from your X-ray generator to heat several thousand other buildings.

Personally, I'm reasonably happy with bashing religion, but you are wrong anyway.The particular irrational crap they are fed is what the Chinese call communism (which isn't the real thing, but that's beside the point).

Incidentally, the fact that two women have complained about him isn't legally important either. Unless they were both present at the same time and corroborate one another's stories. Being accused by one party is not evidence of guilt of a crime against a second party. If anything this publicity means that Asange cannot expect a fair trial- the jury who try him for the alleged actions against miss A will have heard in the press that he was accused of broadly similar actions against miss B. This will prejudice them (legally) against him. His lawyer can reasonably demand that he is tried in the first case by a jury who are not aware of the allegations of the second case. And, BTW re. "Yes, it's up to whatever authorities there are, who will presumably take a look at the evidence, as opposed to reading an article online, fawning over the importance of "transparency", and deciding that he simply MUST be innocent. " Their decision has nothing to do with whether they think he is guilty or not.

Apart from anything else, they don't have a time machine. If the highest temperature superconductors are only being spotted today then they could hardly have planned for the collider to use them.

"Either (a) the Brits are sticklers for detail or (b ) they're not very enthusiastic about extraditing him." Or they are not stupid and don't want to be arrested themselves for false imprisonment etc. This makes a lot more sense to me than a or b , particularly since the guy has a good lawyer. Incidentally, Imagine that Mr Assange is totally innocent. It is in his interests to make sure that all the paperwork is in order and so on. If it is then he will go to trial and, for the reasons I gave earlier, he will be exonerated. If, on the other hand, the paperwork is cock-eyed then he might find that the judge dismisses the case before he gets to prove his innocence. People may afterwards say "Sure- he got off- but it was a technicality" and he will still look guilty. It is, when it comes down to it, rather complicated.

A gram of MgSO4 will pick up more water than a gram of most other drying agents but, if you put hydrated MgSO4 in a desiccator with sulphuric acid then the acid will dry out the MgSO4. If you put sulphuric acid in a desiccator over phosphorus pentoxide you will dehydrate the acid to form sulphur trioxide. Not may things will dessicate phosphorus pentoxide. It depends what you mean by the most reactive, but P2O5 will outdo most things as a drying agent. Unfortunately, it's expensive messy and reacts with lots of things - so it doesn't get used much.

Or don't, because molten lead attacks platinum.

The trouble is that both sides look unlikely. Look at the Swedish authorities' actions. After deciding that there was no evidence they issue an international arrest warrant- very weird. On the other hand, as you say the two women look unlikely conspirators. However I stand by my observation that, in the absence of any other evidence, this case is unlikely to go to court and even less likely to bring a conviction.

So, after two terms I can't vote for the person or party I wish to. Also, you plan to raise the impact of "floating voters". Aren't these the people who are most likely to be swayed by political stunts? Surely it would be easier to just ditch the term limit? That way a good candidate (from any party) would continue to do a good job.

So I vote to cut their funding and hope my friends do too. Meanwhile, I guess I just hope my "competitors" don't get wise.

One stupid legal decision in Canada has very little to do with the case in hand.

What percentage of the subjects didn't understand statistics?

If I was innocent I'd fight extradition. He already offered to answer the questions. They already said there was no evidence. Now suddenly they want to extradite him. Looks fishy to me. I don't blame him for trying to keep out of it. I haven't seen any details of the " threat to reveal data without redaction if arrested." Though I believe a lot of the data wasn't redacted because the data's owner - the US govt- didn't redact it. Incidentally, the worst he can do is tell the truth- what does that tell you about the people he is "threatening"?

"As are Pekka Pyykkö's predictions. and as were the prediction for numerous particles before their eventual discovery, so where is the difference?" The other particles are characterised by their decay products. Nobody has done a lot of chemistry with the superheavy elements. As they get heavier they get less stable. The idea that anyone will ever do enough chemistry (or spectroscopy) to validate your predictions is laughable. The idea that it will happen in "the not to distant future" shows how little you actually know.

You might want to have a look at this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sugar_syrup#Chemical_reaction_of_the_inversion

A well known search engine tells me that the mass of a proton is 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms and that the mass of the helium nucleus is 6.64465620 x 10-27 Kg So, if I fuse 4 protons together to get an alpha particle I change 4 x 1.67262158 × 10-27 i.e. 6.69048632 x 10-27 Kg into 6.64465620 X 10-27Kg The difference 0.04583012 X 10-27 Kg is converted into energy (Incidentally, I know- the charge doesn't balance and it's a bit more complicated than sticking 4 protons together but I'm just illustrating the point)

"Subject to resolution by experiment in the not to distant future." LOL

I'm not sure that anyone, except, perhaps, Elas, understands what Elas is saying. (Apart from the bereavement of course. Sorry to hear about that.) Some of the diagrams are quite pretty and have nice colours in them. I can postulate that the electron distribution of the outermost shell of element 172 is shaped like an elephant. Nobody is ever going to prove me wrong. It's not science.

The difference is that one of them has happened and the other doesn't matter. I still doubt this will go to trial simply because (as is sadly all too common in rape cases) there will not be any objective evidence. What evidence is there that he is holding himself above the law anyway?

Most people vote for a party, not a politician. Whoever heads the "Right" party will get the votes of the right-wingers and whoever heads the "Left" will get the vote of the left-wingers. Most people tend to stick with one party for life. Why should I be barred from voting from my preferred candidate (or party). How is that democratic?