John Cuthber

no

No, this is. Swedish prosecutors indicted him in August for the rape of two women, but a judge threw out the ruling within days due to insufficient evidence. Also, do you understand the difference between "We won't bother with a trial because we believe he is guilty" and "We won't bother with a trial because there is insufficient evidence? And it still has bugger all to do with the thread.

The nature of the allegation is apparently widely know. "a judge threw out the ruling within days due to insufficient evidence"

For the record, methyl orange isn't chiral either.

We don't know any of what? The nature of the allegation is apparently widely know. My whole point is that, not only do we not currently know, but that neither we, nor the courts will ever know. It is a fundamental problem with the nature of the offence. If he says "I did nothing wrong" then there is no way to prove otherwise. It's just one person's word against another's.

I don't understand all this fuss about the alleged offence. For a start, it has no relevance but, more importantly, I can't see how it will ever come to trial. Here's the basis of the trial Miss X says " I told you to stop when the condom split" Mr A says " No you didn't." End of case. No proof of guilt so he gets found not guilty. Unless they chose to video their activities or something, there is no way that she can win the case. I know that, so do you and so do all the lawyers. Why waste the court's time with it?

Salicylic acid doesn't rotate the plane of polarised light. It can't It has a mirror symmetry plane.

The iodide ion is one product. Do you know what the other product or products are? You need to know all of them to write a balanced equation.

I'm looking for etiquette guidance here. There's another lab up the road that does research that overlaps with mine. Am I allowed to vote to cut their funding, or do I have to rely on my friends and family to do so?

Well, the first step is to find out what the products are. Do you know that?

Newton may have been wrong, but he was jolly clever. If he thought that a particle model would work, provided that they moved faster in the denser medium, then he must have had some sort of model to explain it. I don't know what it was, but I once met someone who might. I will see if I can find his webpage. Found it http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=45 Incidentally, the first measurements of the speed of light were astronomical. Fizeau's method (with wheels and distant mirrors) was a bit later. I think it was Michelson and Morely who first measured the speed of light in water and got a direct proof that n was c/v but it might have been someone later.

I have a worrying feeling that, if he were to try to be more entertaining he would be more trying and no more entertaining

Shouldn't this be in the homework help section?

The ones who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

Is it legitimate for a country to help an ally? If it is then there's no reason to keep it secret*; if not then they shouldn't be doing it. * the fact of doing it needn't be secret- the exact means might be legitimately classified) "Certainly, if he was actually only going after transparency and anti-corruption. Then he would be leaking documents regarding everything. Oil companies, banks, senators, legislators, car companies, the department of energy, diplomacy, military, everything. It wouldn't matter what country the documents are from. He would publish them all." Have you had a look at the wikileaks site? http://wikileaks.org/about.html They do leak stuff about banks, corruption etc, Here's their list 2.2 Some of the stories we have broken War, killings, torture and detention Government, trade and corporate transparency Suppression of free speech and a free press Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence Ecology, climate, nature and sciences Corruption, finance, taxes, trading Censorship technology and internet filtering Cults and other religious organizations Abuse, violence, violation

"No matter how many times a day a patient gives a bolus of insulin, the insulin will only start to act about 20 minutes after it is injected, and there is no known way exactly to tailor a delivered dose to the body's constantly changing requirements." If that's true then the same will hold for whatever the natural process is. "I'm not sure why anyone would describe most surgery or chemotherapy as 'curative' or hold that it is without side effects." Nobody said surgery was without side effects. What I said was that, for example, fixing a cleft lip isn't treating a symptom- it's fixing the problem. Chemotherapy has plenty of side effects- ut in many cases it gives as close to a cure for cancer as most people consider important. (if you have cancer, get chemotherapy, the cancer goes away and, in the end, you die of something else then for all practical purposes the chemotherapy cured the cancer.) "IQ points are lost with every application of general anesthesia;" Any evidence for this? I know plenty of people how go out for a drink (i.e. apply a general anaesthetic) every Friday. if they lost a single IQ point on each occasion then after 2 years most of them would have negative IQs. That's not really what happens is it?

Snell did his work on refractive indexes before the speed of light was known. It would, therefore, have been quite difficult to have defined it that way. The original definition came from measurements of how light travelled through media.

Having the decision made by "the people" might be better than having it made by the beancounters.

That's not an experiment is it? It's some wrong maths. Do you understand that if you start from something which is wrong (as you have) you will get contradictions (which you have). That's the point of SR- it gets rid of those contradictions. As has been pointed out plenty of times, unless you can actually show an experiment (a real one- not a made up picture of one) you will just keep looking foolish. If your next post doesn't actually show a real experiment (or a reliable link to one) then I'm calling "troll".

No. You look at the posts above. Lots of people have asked you what experimental evidence you have and you have not offered any. At best this makes you look like an idiot, the alternative is that you are a troll and will get banned. So, what experimental evidence do you have to support your position?

It is clear that you can. Voltman did. It is also a perfectly logical answer.

In my openning post of this topic, the measrure length of a moving rod does not relate to light speed and its velocity, so the conception "space contraction" from SR is contradictory to the experiment. What experiment? Have you actually measured the length of a fast moving object? Are you just saying that things don't contract because you can't understand that they do? Have you heard of this effect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

"what does the brain need to work? " It needs to be a brain. Unfortunately, as soon as it is deprived of oxygen and nutrients the cells start to die off and the connections between them fail. Since being a brain requires these cells to be present and properly connected you can't bring the brain back to life.

The pH of pure water varies with temperature from about 7.5 (at ice point) to about 6.5 boiling. On the other hand, the pH should get back to 7 if you get it back to 20C. It's possible that freezing the stuff broke up some cell membranes from the plant and let their contents out so they could react with the bulk of the material and alter the pH.

We already have another word for it. Nelson Mandela was classified ( by Maggie among others) as a terrorist, but is now recognised as a freedom fighter. I work for the (UK's) government. I know there are regulations. My concern is that the leaked documents were "over classified" in order to stop the people who pay for the government finding out about cockups. That's not within the rules. As I said, I'm not at all sure that some of these documents should ever have been classified as secret. If I'm right then those who classified them have demonstrated that they cannot do their job properly. It may be better to have someone independent to look at them. Wikileaks isn't the best way to do this- but it's the only system we have.