John Cuthber

And they reply "The Democrats supported it too- that's how it got through Congress." So, the Dems gain nothing and a lot of $ gets wasted on a wall. (A wall that nobody voted for- the election promise was a wall paid for by Mexico, not the US).

Nope, it's 1. OK, so it's a different way of writing it, but, it's still exactly 1 So, the problem isn't some fundamental issue with maths, it's to do with your lack of understanding.

Some people come through the current barrier. Is this doing any harm? If not, the current barrier is good enough. On a related note, what's going to happen when Trump asks Congress for for enough money to buy all the ladders in Mexico? In other news... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/test-steel-prototype-border-wall-showed-it-could-be-sawed-n956856 It's things like that which make it abundantly clear that this is a vanity project, not a real security feature. (and, btw, weren't the Mexicans going to pay for it?) Were they contracted to build "The Wall"? If so, how come Obama didn't point that out during Trump's "I will build a wall" campaign? Nothing would have destroyed it as a campaign promise better than saying "we are already doing that". Or is Trump not really just "renewing the contract" but massively expanding it- in which case your post is misleading?

That's interesting. Did you try making the first two circuits + checking if they really work?

Guess again.

If the glass is a good absorber of UV- which it should be- it won't reflect the UV. Even if it was a non- absorber like fused quartz, the reflections would only be something like 10% as intense as the direct light. The dominant UV absorber in most glass is usually iron, preset as an impurity from the sand used in glassmaking. For plastic glasses it's likely that much of the UV is absorbed by the polymer.

So is a kilometre, and I think that may have been the point.

Based on very lille but the colour and lustre, I'd wonder about furnace slag. https://dlynx.rhodes.edu/jspui/handle/10267/2234

Don't worry, you can still wiggle them in 0.2 bar oxygen.

Sweat doesn't usually boil- if it does then you are already in all sorts of trouble. The energy needed to separate gas phase water molecules from the liquid should be independent of the presence of nitrogen. So the cooling per gram of sweat should be the same. However, in the relative absence of air, the rate of evaporation will be higher (A bit like a vacuum desiccator). I'm not sure what effect that will have but I suspect that the body's feedback systems may well be able to deal with it.

I don't see how there's a change in the heat of evaporation of water. The thermal conductivity is nearly independent of pressure (in this range). A lack of CO2 would trouble plants, but the lack of atmospheric N2 shouldn't, except for plants that fix their own nitrogen.

They would add water to the oxygen- either deliberately or accidentally (people produce quite a bit of water vapour). But it wouldn't affect the overall pressure by much- the odd 1% or so depending on what humidity they chose. One potential problem would be condensation on any "cold spots". I'm not sure that the low pressure would actually make much difference

Like the media (apparently), I don't see GDPR as "ludicrous". What bits of it do you see as a problem?

Most EU legislation is subject to a consultation process before it is enacted. https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en?order_by_status=All&field_core_topics_target_id_entityreference_filter=369 If you don't like the sort of things they do, but you don't even look to see what they are doing...

It wouldn't help.

That pretty much sums it up.

As far as I am aware, there's no real conflict. It doesn't work. Sadly, that often happens- with or without magic beans or whatever. And that happens too. One of the possible causes is a coincidental infection which primes the immune system and provokes a reaction against the cancer. It's a matter of luck. Both of those phenomena happen from time to time. However the studies show that taking amygdalin doesn't increase the number of remissions. However it's important to realise that taking cyanide is bad for you. One of the small number of ways of making it worse is to mix it up with some other random shit + bacteria, then inject it. What you propose is dangerous nonsense.

Did you respond to the consultation on it? ... which is a trivially simple thing to do.

Is this article sponsored by the flat Earth society?

KMnO4 is fine- if you have an aromatic ring, but the OP doesn't. In principle you can dehydrogenate the methyl cyclohexane to toluene, oxidise that to benzoic acid, decarboxylate that to benzene and then hydrogenate it again to get cyclohexane. But it's not easy or worthwhile.

or ironic.

How?

See a doctor or pharmacist.

OK, Here's the proof that, if it has one frequency, it's a sinusoid wave (sine, cos or a combination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_analysis Feel free to argue with it. Nobody will believe you.

I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that , in saying that, I was responding to the thread as a whole (which meant that my comment made sense) rather than to a specific post (where my post would not have made sense). For future reference; my posts generally make sense.