JaKiri

The only way we have of making them is by synthesis.... http://www.chem.wisc.edu/~newtrad/CurrRef/BDGTopic/BDGtext/BDGBucky.html Only 1, 2, 10 and 11 are really applicable though.

Or rubidium

trilby

No.

Look at it this way. If I gathered together H2O and CO2, you wouldn't see glucose crystalising out of the air.

Idiot thing

I don't see why it shouldn't; the thread's been dead for a while. If a mod disagrees, split the following. The main issue I have with 'animal rights' (more specifically a ban on animal testing) is that it rests on the assumption that animals can undergo a state which can best be termed 'suffering' (ie detached from instant pain, and a reaction to that pain, but over a longer term), something which I haven't seen proven. If you're opposed to it just because it has the capacity to cause pain, I don't see why that's any different to being opposed to checking computer software for bugs; (in evolutionary terms) they're both just error messages, and without some underlying intellect, they're meaningless.

It actually means 'is necessary or proper for', not to help you. If you're going to post 'cool words', at least check their meanings beforehand.

Ah, didn't see that. See: Sayonara's interpretation instead then.

camilla

I personally don't see what's so wrong with animal testing.

Good response :up:

When the concentration of H+ (or, more correctly H3O+) is equal to the concentration of the acid. Basically (boom boom). (How do you do superscript? [super]doesn't seem to work[/super])

A multiple of the square root of -1, i.

That's not a reversable reaction involving gases, though, is it?

It's called 'Being precise'; why use a short incorrect word, when you can use the right one? Would you use 'dog' instead of 'hamster', for instance? I don't know what you're talking about here, but it's almost certainly wrong.

No. Really, don't. It's got the most annoying (and constant) incidental music I've ever heard. Plus it just rambles on and on and on and doesn't actually get to a point.

You can't go faster than the speed of light. And even if you could, time would be imaginary, not reversed.

The question is badly worded, because it could either be interpreted to mean 'Has it been detrimental to your opinion of the bbc?' or 'Do you think that the BBC's reputation as a whole has been damaged?'

mini

Rewrite the equation so it goes the other way.

Something tells me you missed the existance of a second page.

You should change. The only definitive explanation is to look at the probability of each event. Event 1: You choose a goat. If you change, you get a car. Event 2: You choose the other goat. If you change, you get a car. Event 3: You choose the car. If you change, you get a goat. Therefore, there's a 2/3 chance of you getting the car if you change.

Good for you. For science, if asked the questions 'Are strings equivilent to dark matter?', I'm afraid the answer is 'No, those things are not equivilent'

august