John Cuthber

No

Boiling aspirin in alkali hydrolyses it. I think that's covered where you say " mole ration between NaOH and acetylsalicylic acid is 1:2" But it's always a good idea to start by writing down the equation.

And, to a rough approximation, that's how we know she is bad.

No I'd start off a beginner on something like In fact, I did. Which makes it obvious that your post was a bit silly. That too might put someone off.

And they will ask a chemist who will tell them it's largely down to dipole-dipole interactions. Those arise in turn from the " forces between individual oxygen atoms" which I am told are "very theoretical." Playing "my field is better than your field" never works.

Nobody ever got close to saying it was. I'd start with the Khan academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry

Your posts show that you do not understand the theory. You really need to learn about it before trying to say it is wrong.

The OP may find this explanation interesting

OK, strictly; she's entitled to ask to settle where she likes. As plenty of people did post WWII. Plenty of Americans, Poles etc stayed here. The point is that she's entitled to "come home", now the "war" is " over".

Well, it's the funniest thing; but I'm not the one who called it a "War on terror". So I'm not the one who made her a combattant. I recognized this problem some while back, albeit, looking at a different aspect. But, since others did decide it was a war, she may well think she's a soldier. Now "the war's over", she's entitled to settle where she chooses.

You do realise that, in general, society takes care of children, don't you? What would clearly be the wrong thing would be to, for example, leave the baby in a refugee camp in Syria along with ISIS. Plenty of kids lied about their age to sign up for the army in WWII I can't imagine it was any different on the German's side. Should we have imprisoned them all when they came home?

Why just Dim? It's pretty clear that I too think she should come back here. Incidentally, I gather she would prefer her parents to be involved. That may be a better option than me or Dim, and it's certainly a better bet than ISIS (or even Sajid Javid).

Well, odd as it may seem, I doubt I was being praised for that line of my post being coherent with itself. I reckon it might have referred to my whole screed. Possibly even wrt my other postings here. And, I think Dimreeper has misunderstood your post as presupposing that there were crimes which would be prejudice (pretty much by definition). I am, on the other hand, not sure how he managed to interpret it that way. I'd not like to be the one who has to rule out... prejudice as an explanation. Well, yes. She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And that may explain how she got conned into thinking ISIS was a good thing. So now, among other things, we have to decide if letting ISIS raise her baby is a good thing. You might want to take some time over that decision (or it might be bloody obvious).

Due process does it the other way round.The action taken (stripping her citizenship) is manifestly illegal under international law. Well, strictly speaking... While surrounded by a bunch of people who may well be sympathetic to ISIS, she still says that she supports them. However, she is asking for passage back home to the UK. Who can tell what she will say when she's no longer in among that bunch? What Process? The one which the Home Secretary has ignored? Except she's not. She's British. No Odd as it may seem, you need a trial before you have a conviction. Unless, of course, a court remembers that she was a minor when she made that decision and has not subsequently been in a position to change her mind. She's now trying to do so. But, for some reason, you seem to have decided to forbid that option. The government of Bangladesh had never heard of her. She is not, nor has she ever been a bangladeshi citizen. She has never visited the place. Imagine it was the other way round- she was born to british parents in Bangladesh and now wanted to go back there. Imagine the Bangladeshi government was trying to claim she was British. How would that play out in the UK? Because, if we decide to ignore the rule of law, we might as well invite ISIS to run the place for us. Don't you see that we have to show that we are better than them? Handing him over to the Americans, knowing what would happen, makes Canada responsible for what happened to him at their hands. They shouldn't have done it; they didn't have to. The difference is that what the Americans did was legal under US law, but what Canada did was illegal under Canadian law. Fundamentally it looks like she's a criminal. We should treat her the same as any other criminal who went abroad and is now wishing to return. Bring them back, and take them to court.

I doubt that. 360nM is well within the transmission range of most glass, never mind fused quartz. My guess is that it's scattered light from the excitation light.

Water vapour is a big contributor to the greenhouse effect. But CO2 is the most important; because it's the one we have changed.

I think you have just shown that you can't have a meaningful debate about an idea unless you understand it.

I rather like the title of this piece. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/opinion/facts-have-a-well-known-liberal-bias.html

It's slightly worse than that. Nd is not (usefully) magnetic. An alloy of Nd, Fe and B is

Ancestors are your parents, grandparents and so on. There's nothing you can do to change it. Your genetics are the inherited instructions for making "you". They are stored in DNA. It may be possible to edit the DNA, but what would be the point?

If you want a free digital copy you can get it. How to Convince Your Stupid Friend That Earth Is Flat: 23 flat earth proofs, funny gift for birthday But If I recall correctly, the rules of the forum state that the discussion has to be possible without having to go to some other site. So, until someone posts the argument here, we can't discuss it. And I think it would be a breach of copyright for anyone but the OP to post it.

If you post your arguments here then we can discuss them.

I agree; but, on this,he's plain wrong, so he's lying or deluded. He did need to do it because Congress had blocked teh alternative.

To be fair, w can't rule out deluded, rather than dishonest.

It doesn't even look like a tent peg. https://www.google.com/search?biw=1745&bih=853&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=JchlXIzBIPaX1fAPgcW9sAE&q=wooden+tent+pegs&oq=wooden+tent+pegs&gs_l=img.3..0j0i24.7890.9066..9350...0.0..0.85.582.7......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i7i30.P_kthifjAZk