John Cuthber

The Ninja would have killed his opponent last night as he slept. A bit thin on "honour" perhaps, but effective.

The product is not available. Some people are not overweight. Therefore the existence of the product is not a requirement for maintaining a healthy weight (etc). There is no reason to expect that making this stuff available would help Green Xenon get a healthier lifestyle. Blaming the absence of this product won't help. There are plenty of healthy foods out there. If you are dangerously overweight then you really shouldn't be worrying about the theoretical "risk" to your health from pesticide residues in food. The answer is simple, though I know it's not easy. Eat less and better. Exercise more. Some imaginary "health drink" isn't going to save you from the problems you mention, so you need to do that for yourself.

Are there significant differences in the natural resources of California and Texas that might explain the financial difference? For example, Texas produces about 50% more oil but only has roughly 2/3 of the population to share that revenue among.

I'm not sure what you would get, but it wouldn't be beer.

At room temperature the stuff would start to ferment in a matter of hours. It would be undrinkable, and probably toxic, after a few days. You have, as an example, set up near perfect conditions to culture clostridium botulinum, the organism responsible for botulism (once the yeasts have taken up all the oxygen). The bug is fairly widely distributed in soil so there's a good chance of it getting into the mix. Probably more importantly, it ignores the fact that humans don't just eat to live.

"i was told it could be made from amounia nitric and KOH or KCL" By whom? Would I be right in thinking that English wasn't their first language and/ or that they don't know a lot of chemistry? Anyway, The reaction of ammonium nitrate with KOH will give potassium nitrate but, as far as I know, there are no natural sources of ammonium nitrate.

No, the point might be that it identifies you. For example http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Culture/Question827738.html The important thing is that it's consistent.

"Yeah, I am. I don't think accusatory rhetoric that isn't substantiated by evidence is good for the discourse. My two bits, anyway" OK, why are you content with an illegal war, but not a dishonest one? Would it have been possible to persuade people to go and die for a foreign country if you started off by saying "this is illegal but we are going to do it anyway."?

He's a politician so I'd not bet against it. Anyway, they guy led your country into an illegal war and you are worrying about whether he did it "honestly".

Ironic to think that there would probably be fewer tits there.

Also, I might want to drive at night

"I wanted some hard core scientists to tell me how sound this idea is. " Then learn to spell.

"Lets put a scale factor of 2, and approximatively double the size of the square," Double the size in the sense of make it 4 times bigger.

A very out of focus image of the iris diaphragm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragm_(optics)

Can I ask what hat the figure of 20 years was drawn from? Ever heard of a life sentence? Sometimes that's a literal description.

Not so much who cares, but who cares enough to pay. On the other hand, the triple point of gallium is known to about 9 digits.

The "rare earths", are not rare. Even the rarest of them is about 10times more common than silver.

Sorry, can you clarify something. Which side does a lying president come under?

If someone gives me a lot of money I will clear the confusion up for you all; but it will need to be a lot of money Seriously, that's probably the root of the problem. It's frankly rather difficult to measure temperatures in this range. Making clean systems containing boiling metals at atmospheric pressure, but in the absence of air to avoid reaction, is even harder. I'd love to be able to say "never trust a measured value unless it has an uncertainty stated along with it" but that would grind most things to a halt.

"that you would not have the right to kill the attackers to stop the assault?" Straw man alert! To do something in order to stop them killing your family during an attack is not the same as killing the perpetrator, cold bloodedly, afterwards when it won't bring anyone back from the dead. Fundamentally, I don't see how you can hope to be both a killer and morally better than a killer at the same time. Since I can't be both, I know which I prefer to choose. (for the record I don't see the moral difference between sentencing someone to death, killing them yourself, or handing them over to a judicial system that will kill them; it's like saying "I didn't kill him. The bullet I fired did that")

To be fair my questions were loaded. For further examples of loaded questions please see the original post. For answers to those questions see... Oh dear, I don't seem to have received any.

"If killing is wrong, why do it? If killing isn't wrong then what are you complaining about? Cuthber, are you actually serious in both of your assessments? " It doesn't matter if I'm serious or not; you still need to answer the questions.

"How can one person brutally murder another, and then only be locked up in an asylum for the remainder of their life or until they are fit to stand trial?" The simple answer is that it's at least as wrong for us, sane, deliberate, clear-thinking people to kill someone as it was for someone who didn't have those advantages (for whatever reason) to do so. If killing is wrong, why do it? If killing isn't wrong then what are you complaining about?

Dividing pi by 80 would be a bit tedious. Multiplying it by 125 then moving the decimal point to divide by 1000 is a lot easier. Or you could halve it 3 times then shift the decimal point one across. (not a lot less effort- but you only need to know your two times table.) In the days before calculators, people were expected to know about that sort of thing and there were tables of reciprocals alongside the log tables etc. As far as I can see this "I think you can use small angle approximation for a problem like this. the small angle approximation states that for small enough angles in radians Sin(theta) tends to theta." is the same as saying that the curve round the circle is the same length as the straight line. That's not allowed because of this requirement " Not the arch curve but the straight line between them." So you need to use at least the first few terms in the polynomial expansion otherwise you are cheating. Don't forget to convert the angle into radians (which brings us back to what's pi/80?).

So, in order to testify as a witness in Arkansas I'd have to lie about my religious beliefs. Brilliant!