mooeypoo

That's enough. Come back when you are ready to discuss science. If you continue the way you are, you're not going to have much more chances to explain your ideas.

You're trolling. Go read a bit about what the Earth is made of, and come back when you have a better picture of what your theory should say. ~moo

You either want to learn or you want to share a theory you don't even understand yourself. How do you want us to participate in a debate where every time we ask you a question you either say YOU don't understand it yourself or you ask us about some basic concept you don't know. Learn first. Theorize later. This 'oh.. nonsense..' and 'i dont know' wordsalad is tiring and frustrating. I don't know where to *start*, Clipper. No, I'm telling you that your CLAIMS are wrong because you don't ask enough questions before you claim stuff. Your theory makes no sense. Stop making theories before you know what physics actually says. ~moo

That's not evidence, because it doesn't say anything about *YOUR* theory. Clipper, either you want to learn or you don't. If oyu continue posting nonsensical threads that no one can understand (including you) then this adventure won't last long. We'll be very happy to help you learn, but you need to want to.

Clipper, this is why readers of your threads repeatedly tell you that you're making no sense: You CANNOT make statements like the above without explaining where you got to this conclusion, why, and, since you're exclaiming a mathematical property, you must demonstrate the mathematical demonstration of where this came from. Otherwise, it's equivalent to me saying "With this alignment the earth will be rotating 2462436.222213 fold." You would have no way of showing my statement as false and yours as true, or even yours as *better* than mine. You can't make statements and just pretend they're automatically right. It doesn't work like that. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Less nonsense of 100% nonsense is still nonsense. You admit you don't know, Clipper, then instead of posting nonsensical topics, why don't start by asking about the subjects that interest you so we can help you learn about them more? Before you can suggest alternative theories to the way physics explains reality, you should know about the current ways physics explains reality. You can't claim current theory is wrong (and needs substitution) if you don't know what the theory SAYS. Case in point, you don't know what the inner core is made of -- then how can you suggest your theory!? Learn first. Open your mind, open some books, ask us whatever you wish to know and we'll try to steer you on the right path to learning these subjects. But these word-salad suggestions make very little sense, and they don't help you get anywhere.

I don't think that will work well on the ball lightning, specially if the stick is conductive.

I was trying to show you that even if you don't remember the formula, you can figure out what to do if you remember the units (which you really have to in sciences, and I assume your professor would want to see it in the test too): So, knowing that Molarity = mol/Liter, the question here gets relatively easy: Translate it to what you already know. You have volume = 3.00L (given). You know you want to make 0.125M solution, which is mol/Liter, right? M = mol/Liter [math]0.125 \text{M} = \frac{\text{x mol}}{\text{2.00 Liter}}[/math] And you can get the number of mols that you need from the above. Then you can do whatever you want with it - keep it as mols, or convert it to grams by molar mass, etc etc. So, my point, is that if you go by the units, you can figure things out rather easily. You can repeat this for most of your wquestions above, without remembering any complicated formulas or any variety of many formulas. This is it. You have Molarity, remember what molarty is (and you kinda have to, specially when you also have 'molality' that is also a concentration but is different from molarity by units). ~moo

I want the units of molarity. You can see the formula for molarity from its units. So either find me the formula of how to calculate molarity, or find me the units of molarity... either way, that's going to get you towards the solution. They're easy to find on a google search try.

Don't think, check . Look up molarity... that's the only thing you need to solve your questions.

No. You're connecting things that are unrelated. The answer is no.

(+Gilded) I think I'd rather probe animals than humans, although the animals probably fight it more (+Gilded) ^That's a pretty interesting statement when taken out of context btw Ahhhh... the art of taking things out of context.

Israel operates by the parliamentary system, not by direct vote. That means that this representative wasn't directly voted in, she is part of a larger party that got into the parliament and was assigned seats according to the coalition agreements. Revoking her seat is not a punishment that requires a trial, it's a democratic procedure necessitating a majority vote. If the attorney general decides that criminal proceedings should be brought up (not sure if that's likely to happen) then she will have an investigation and a trial. But losing her seat is not a criminal proceeding, it's part of a democratic proceeding just like voting on a bill. There was a majority vote regarding a party which she is part of. The party will replace her with someone else, so the party itself is not losing seats. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And I would like to say ditto on all of you. You guys made it very easy to have an intellectual debate rather than an emotional one, and you sure as heck got me thinking about my position (whether we ended up agreeing or not), which is, imho, the most important result. I wish all political discussions were like this one ~moo

I wonder if JFK's blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis is deemed illegal too. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged She's not going to jail, she's voted out of the party, and off her seat.

The blockade, whether you think it's justified or not, is a decision taken by the parliament. A member of parliament is supposed to work for the people, not for herself, and once a decision passes the parliament, you should fight the decision LEGALLY. If you chose to take an ILLEGAL action then you lose your membership in the parliament. It might be unclear if this is internationally legal or not, but the decision was made to law inside israel, which means that making a decision to break this blockade is going *AGAINST* Israeli law. If a member of congress was to break an American law to show the law is unjust, that member of congress would likely lose their position too. That's not the way to change laws in a democratic country. Not in Israel, and not in the US and not in England (whom Israel took its parliamentary system from). ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, I just found these analyses (multiple, however you spell that..) interesting, specially since it doesn't come from an Israeli site, but rather a site well known for exposing image-related blunders. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/link/215282_Fauxtography-_Reuters_Crops_Out_Peace_Activist_Weapon_Again The propaganda war, it seems, is not just in Israel's side, and it appears that it isn't just on the "obviously biased" sources either. You'd expect Reuters to be a fair source... apparently not so much?

Do you remember what "M" means in units? That will help you. You should have it, for sure, in your book. If you still don't know how to solve these after you see what M equals to in units, post that here, and I'll give you another hint...

No. Why would it?

I feel like you're missing my point, and it's my fault here, I am not conveying it right. I don't accuse the reporter of being a liar, and I don't think he's generally untrustworthy. I don't doubt his credentials at all. I do think that in *THIS* instance his eyewittness testimony is unreliable because he was inside the situation, suffering, probably very confused, around a crowd that he wasn't part of (I doubt he was part of the actual attacks on the soldiers). Look. When I was a teenager, I was part of a fairly large Peace movement in Israel; I was a very big activist for palestinians rights. I still do some of that, although today I no longer live in Israel, so I have less time to do that. However, when I was 17, my friend blew up in a terrorist attack in a restaurant where she was eating lunch with her friends. I was supposed to join. I was very late (was about to cancel when I heard the news). For the few days after this happened, my immediate reaction was emotional and extreme. Quite frankly, I wanted every one of them dead or gone far far and away from me. Why? Because when you're faced with a life-and-death situation - a real life one, not one in the movies or tv - your emotions eat your logic up completely. I was NOT rational, and I can tell you that (naturally) I remember this situation in a very biased way. However, now, years after the fact, I can look back at the global situation differently. You might find this ironic, but inside Israel I am considered relatively pro-palestinian. I do think my government is doing things it shouldn't do, and I think there's a *lot* to fix. But I am not deluding myself as to think I can be unbiased in explaining the events of that terrorist attack where I lost my friend. Nor can I be biased in arguing about the specific events of the other terrorist attacks that I either witnessed myself, or had friends die. Emotions skew your perspective, and in a situation where you're lying on the ground bleeding under a mess of people screaming, yelling, beating, shooting and flailing around, you *can't* know what's going on. I don't think this reporter is biased in general. I don't think he's generally unreliable. I think that in this PARTICULAR INSTANCE the eye witness accounts are partial, affected by *extreme* distress and emotion (which is *TOTALLY* understandable) and therefore they cannot be considered unbiased or reliable. On all sides. And so I treat *all* eyewitness accounts as unreliable in this case, because they are all unbiased. They are all either from people who weren't in the situation or from people who were in the situation but had an agenda, or were in the situation and got hurt without being part of the group that was violent (probably they didn't expect this group to act the way they did either). I therefore try to find other evidence that can show me the real picture. Not because I want to protect the integrity of my country - but because I think that only the real truth can lead everyone - my country included, and my country *in particular!* to do things DIFFERENTLY. To *not* have this happen again. The reporters can have the best track record possible; that doesn't mean they are able to be unbiased in this particular case. I don't think they are purposefully lying, I think they aren't *able* to be objective here. Understandably. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I think you sould read my posts throughout the thread again. I didn't say they were asking for it, not at all. I did say that they attacked the soldiers. If the IDF was using the "rape" reasoning, it wouldn't have waited two whole minutes (this is a *LONG* time in combat situation where you're beaten up and thrown out the deck and stabbed) to react with live fire. They shot the feet, until they were attacked back with (supposedly their own) weapons, at which point they reacted immediately and deadly. That's not "they asked for it", that's "they created a bad situation". As was said earlier in this thread, If SWAT was to storm your apartment and hold you at gun point, then go "oops, wrong house", you would do well by cooperating first and suing later. If, on the other hand, you would be pulling a knife and stabbing the SWAT members, then no matter how right you are, you will likely be shot. And that's assuming the IDF acted against the laws - which is a whole other debate (not as clear cut as you seem to think it is). According to most accounts fo the international law, though, the IDF acted to the letter. People don't like that, maybe, but that doesn't mean it's not legal to stop ships that declare they're about to cross a naval blockade. ~moo

And I've pointed out that the search was (a) not according to international standards (they missed the knives and bats, didn't they?) and (b) the ship stopped along the way. There are claims now that the violent group on the upper deck came onboard after the rest of the ship. I'll look up the references in the morning.. I need to go to sleep now. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Unfortunately, I posted (and others did too) some articles with different accounts from people who are supposed to be "reliable" the same way (not the soldiers themselves). Who do you believe if you IGNORE your personal biases (and we all have them)? My point is that in this case, it seems that the personal accounts are *less reliable* in *all* sides than the videos and pictures and audio communication that come out. ~moo

And yet you don't SOUND like you're skeptical about the other side *despite* their own history. I find that weird. I'm far from saying Israel is perfect - or even that Israel has acted well in this case, but that doesn't mean I don't see the fault of the flotilla folks as well, which, I believe, I will be very gentle by saying encouraged this deadly situation, and knowingly so. I didn't say they did everything by the book, far from it. That doesn't mean they didn't do *anything* by the book, though. Even *if* that's the knife that belonged to the soldier, the soldiers didn't use those knives against the flotilla folks. Just a short look at the videos shows clearly that they were attacked. The discussion of whether they were justifiably attacked or not is besides the point - they were the ones being attacked, and they waited a full two minute mark before asking to use live weapons (not knives. guns). Knives were found in the flotilla, as well as saws (according to accounrs, and to some of the videos, used trying to cut off the soldier's hands) and bats and big metal rods, and gas masks. Whoever says that knives and metal rods are not deadly weapons has never been (or seen) a riot. What I do agree with is that the operation should've been planned and carried-out differently. I don't know if riot-police is a viable option considering the location of the ships, but I believe there are other ways to stop a boat that don't involve physically boarding it. One more point to consider, though, is that if you stop a boat by, say, doing what the coast-guard is doing, and ruining its propeller, you might create a bigger problem onboard the ship (a humanitarian crisis onboard) because dragging a ship to shore takes *much* more time than driving it to shore. That doesn't mean the operation was done well, not at all, but my point is that the situation isn't black-and-white. There *are* gray areas here. Quite a lot of them. Agreed, but they don't do that. Either they don't care about the weapons sent into the strip, or they don't care to seem like they care enough as to support a blockade. Who knows. But they're not an option. I agree. Having a third party do the blockade and the security screening for the aid is preferable. Israel offer the ships to have the UN and/or an independent party conduct the security checks before the aid continues to Gaza - that is, not have Israel do it, but have another country or the UN do it. That's a third party who's unrelated. The ships refused. ~moo

That's a fair question. My suggestion is that they should have done exactly what the other six ships did, and make an international outcry without being violent against soldiers and creating a situation that increases the chances of more violence. The other six ships had zero casualties, and they made a huge outcry. That would also make the flotilla's point *much* stronger if they wouldn't have a minority group hellbent on creating violence - which makes *them* be part of the side that screwed up instead of being truly innocent, and keeping the right to claim Israel and the IDF as the true "assailant". In the above case I might not have agreed on the issues of whether or not the blockade was justified or not, or whether or not the ships should have or shouldn't have been boarded, but I *would* have seen the point of the Flotilla (and would have agreed partially with some of the points they were making, though perhaps not all). Again, Israel is a democracy, and although I do see the point of the blockade, I think Israel tends to lose sight of the world opinion at times, and sometimes the IDF elects to go for the "easy" route rather than the tougher - but maybe less 'painful' for the palestinians - route. I do think that demonstrations *SHOULD* be done to remind those in power that they're not alone in the world, and that they *ARE* accountable, to their own voters *and* to teh world. But the way this flotilla was handled - the fifth ship in particular - defied this point. Instead of making the point that Israel is, perhaps, doing something wrong here that deserves to be changed, the flotilla actions seemed to show that the 'peace activists' are more interested in slamming Israel than actually doing peace activism. That defies the point of BOTH sides. My biggest problem is the violence on both sides. It seems to me, however, from the example of the other six (!) ships, that without a violent minority that seemingly intended to provoke violence from the soldiers, this could've been ended with zero casualties and total victory for the 'peace activists'. As it were, I think the fifth boat ruined the point of its fellow six ships, honestly. ~moo

Yes, the soldier looks very hungry.

I hope so too. If that really happened, I want to see the balls of those soldiers on a plate. I'm not the only one - with and without Israeli citizenship - either. Yes, I head that the people in the lower decks on the sixth flotilla, according to accounts, saved the soldiers from being kidnapped and/or killed by the violent minority that occupied the upper decks. On the other hand, there's also this picture: (notice the knife on the lower right corner) (source: http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2) There is blame on both sides, it seems. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'll ask again: Are you saying that *all* blame is in Israel's side? I just want to be clear on your position here. Seems to me you find absolutely no blame at all on the flotilla side; am I right?

You see though that you're making a decision here that all Israelis are unreliable and all flotilla-boarders are reliable? The investigation will not be done by the IDF as far as I'm aware, it will be done by an external committee. And the journalist - was he on the lower decks of the ship with the truly-innocent flotilla aid workers? Did he *see* what went on at the top deck, or did he hear about it from the others? As far as I'm aware, the journalists were on the lower decks. If that's true, the journalist can be the most objective in the world and his testimony will still be unreliable because he didn't *SEE* what happened, and got his information from other (biased) sources. But I'm more curious about another issue - just like I asked the others on the thread that seemed to blame the *entire* event seemingly one-sidedly on Israel: If you claim Israel did the wrong thing, you need to bring up a viable alternative. Letting the ship pass isn't a viable alternative (as you probably, hopefully, read before). What, then, would you suggest was supposed to be done? And how do you explain the other six ships having absolutely *NO* events on-board, if the IDF is so deadly biased and hellbent on murder and theft? ~moo

Only when he pwns the queen of pwns. Seriously, though, this is in speculation for a reason. You can just ignore it. The staff is participating in this thread, and are aware of it. Not to worry, we'll close it when we think it needs closing. Until then, feel free to take it off your notify list, I don't think it would be that much of a loss for your thread queue.

Of course it gets more reliable - the journalist was part of the flotilla that has a clear agenda against Israel.. he isn't objective. I'm not saying he's completely unreliable, i'm saying I have no way of knowing which eyewitness is right in light of so many conflicting testimonies so far (and we should really wait for the investigation). Hence, I will rather not trust *ANY* eyewitness testimony. Equally. Moreover, just going over Israeli news sources (specially "Haaretz") will show you that Israeli media is*FAR* from being partisan. There are writers there that call for the dismantling of the state of Israel (causing quite a stir among the readers, I can tell you that). Those writers and articles *ARE* published in this media. Israel is a democracy. There is freedom of speech. People speak against the government, as well as for it. I have no way of knowing who is objective; according to the videos, the people aboard the top deck of the flotilla fought back against the soldiers taht (read the international law carefully) came *lawfully* to stop them. Whether you agree with the blockade or not, the action is not unlawful; it follows the international law to the letter (and we've had a few posts about that already, yuo should read them). There was obviously screwups on both sides, but considering the fact that Israel *is* delivering the aid into Gaza, and considering the fact that all the other six ships were handled without any shred of violence, I'm having a lot of difficulties believing that the IDF came *looking* for a fight. The extremists onboard the sixth flotilla declared they mean to be martyrs, and they wanted a fight. The fact the IDF fell into this horrible trap is not just unfortunate, it's horrible, and the way they acted should be investigated and - probably - those who planned this should have their heads rolling. And we probably will hear about those consequences once an inquiry is actually conducted (as opposed to rumors and guesses). But deciding to believe one side on the expense of another just because it's more convinient to our conscience to go with what appears to be the weaker side doesn't help us judge what actually happened and analyze the screwups and see how this stops from happening again. Obviously, there were two sides here to this mess, not just one. As I said before, if the IDF intended to kill and violently attack people, they would've boarded the ship with actual deadly guns instead of paintball guns. There are two sides here, whether we agree with one or the other, ignoring the faults of the side we feel for doesn't really help us analyze this situation and fix it. ~moo