John Cuthber

That opens the door to a lot of nonsense.

It is impossible to tell by looking if the particular plastic is opaque to any particular part of the UV spectrum. Also, if the UV is the right wavelength and enough power to sterilise anything, then it's likely to damage you.

The figure in pounds and feet isn't likely to help in a science question. Is there any other data given? In particular, does it say if this experiment is on the Moon, or Earth or where?

It's possible. Why bother?

The idea is related to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Dilution_Principle but it's a tricky one to use in industrial scale synthesis.

Use a large excess of A.

Graphite is fairly weak. For example, it has a lower young's modulus than hemp and a lower tensile strength than perspex.

A few points. first, you have not asked a question How can you expect an answer? What do you think "entanglement" means in this context? You have a history of utterly failing to understand stuff. Can you explain why this is going to be different?

Much better to be a bit embarrassed about previous ignorance than to carry on being really embarrassingly ill informed. Nobody was born knowing this stuff; we all learned it and before we learned it... we didn't know it. So what would be shameful about that fact?

A bit late for April fool's day, isn't it?

Do you have hydroxy-, ethoxy- and acetoxy- fluorene to use as comparisons? Silica gel can be annoyingly good at catalysing reactions you didn't expect- especially in the presence of HBr etc.

What conditions? ( in particular, what solvent?)

That is inconsistent with the real world - specifically it is inconsistent with the existence of isotopes.

A sample size of 1 would be enough to rule out some options- for example, one omnivore rules out the idea that we are all vegan.

Imagine we drop some zinc into the solution of HCl. It dissolves + produces hydrogen Zn + 2 H+ --> H2 + Zn2+ The Cl- simply isn't involved in the reaction, so it can't "neutralise" anything.

The simple answer is "flat things"- things with large radii of curvature.

If you move all the doctors and nurses etc who currently work in the private sector into the public sector, does that actually affect GDP? There are currently sick people who don't get treated. If they were treated then that would mean there were more medical staff working- which would boost GDP and it would mean that the sick people could (in many instances) get back to work which would also boost GDP.

How did that happen? In percentage terms, how big is this change?

Yes, but you can change taxes. US healthcare expenditure is roughly twice that of most Western countries (without a noticeably better set of outcomes). So you just have to set up a "market" in health provision. People can choose to pay $ X ot their current provider or $ X/2 as tax for nationalised healthcare. The sane people will choose to pay the extra tax, because they end up paying less. All you need to do is tell them that they are actually paying some big multinational company, rather than paying a tax. Here in the UK we have a National Health Service that is (or at least was) widely envied. We also have a spending deficit. But the government is trying to blame the cost of the NHS for the deficit. In fact they are responsible for it. They have doubled the national debt in the last 10 years or so. They also make a habit of pretending to be the party of sound financial management. What they have done is cut taxes and privatise state run services. This ends up costing a lot more- not least because they sometimes end up paying twice because the company they pay manages to lose the money - so the govt bails out the rich business owners.

The traditional response is "Publish; and be damned!".

More than a nudge but... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formulas_for_generating_Pythagorean_triples

Two further, obvious, reasons. (1) Why not? (though, I accept that might be regarded as one of the replies already given) (2) someone may have the proof - one way or the other- about those allegations.

Well, if he did actually commit treason then yes, it's a good thing if the report tells you that. That's the point of the report, isn't it? If, on the other hand, it says " We can't prove that he did it" rather than " We exonerate him", that's bad. And there's the interesting question of why not release it?

It's never sensible to try to prove that a theory is true; but it's often reasonable to try to prove that it is false. If all the attempts to prove it false are unsuccessful, then it's (conditionally) presumed to be true. People have been busting a gut trying to show that SR and GR are false. (Not least because you would get rich + famous if you did it) Nobody has managed yet.

Is that a comment on me, or on zoos, or people who talk to dolphins?