hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note Hi bane357, This forum is not a place for advertising. I have removed your links.

The exact same way. I'm unsure of where your confusion is.

What would you like the title to be? ! Moderator Note Never mind, I found your other thread. I'll close this one for you.

! Moderator Note People are reluctant to answer the question because this is a homework question and we are not in the habit of doing other people's work for them. Moved to the appropriate forum.

! Moderator Note I have just moved 32 posts from another thread into this one. Apologies if it makes things a little incoherent. Dbaiba, I once again remind you that personal insults are not accepted here and please also be aware of the additional set of rules for the Religion forum.

! Moderator Note Dbaiba, We have rules here that prohibit members for insulting others. Following something by, 'no offense,' doesn't cut it. Everyone else, please stay on topic. This is about a book by Richard Dawkins and as far as I know, the Qur'an is not one of his. I have removed the OT posts to here. Please do not respond to this note in the thread. You are welcome to report it if you do not agree with it or to PM a member of staff.

! Moderator Note Further to the above note, copy/pasting the spam only benefits the spammers. I've removed the message, but thank you for letting us know. Please report spam messages if you are receiving them via PM or if you notice them on the forums.

Firstly, science isn't really something you do for the money. As for the question, I don't know anyone who has said they've regretted getting theirs. You might get much more financially than working as a tech or RA in some places, but that is again not why people do science. I think it depends a lot on where you want to go with your work and life in general. It's certainly not for everyone and some people would prefer not to spend the time figuring that out, which is fair enough because it is quite a large investment. It is also a huge learning experience though, both technically and personally, and it puts you in contact with a lot of very talented and interesting people. Even if you don't finish it, I think it's worth it for the personal development alone. I myself recently withdrew from my PhD program after a year (PhD's only go for 3 years where I am) and am, for the time being, working as a research technician at a different university in a completely different discipline to the one I have a degree in. I learned a lot about myself and where I want to go with my work in that time and even though I spent 99% of the last 2 years (I continued my work from honors year into my PhD) utterly miserable, I would do it all over again if given the option (and I will eventually go back to it, albeit in another area). Though this is probably an obvious statement, if you are deciding on whether or not to do one, make sure you are doing it for the right reasons (it should be for you, not for someone else) and if you do end up doing one, you should constantly check that it still holds true. My biggest mistake during the year and a bit I was a PhD student was not knowing when it was time to stop. It eventually got to a point where I realised that the only reason I was still there at all was because I didn't want to disappoint my family and feel like a total failure, and those are not good enough reasons to stay (the last part took me a bit longer to figure out).

No, I think you have misunderstood me or I am not being very clear. I mean to say that you could call all polyatomic ions molecular ions. There is no difference in that sense, but the term molecular ion is also used to refer to something in mass spectrometry that you would not use the term polyatomic ion for.

! Moderator Note We've been over these sorts of posts before, esbo. They are not acceptable. I also question whether you made this thread with the intention of actually learning something. Regardless, since we have so many active threads on the twins paradox and this thread is really covering nothing new, I am closing it and asking you to redirect your questions to one of the other threads.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. vinucube, please be aware that this forum has an additional set of rules that you need to be aware of.

! Moderator Note Sorry to all that this has taken so long to get around to. rwjefferson, You have been warned once about trolling in this thread. Enough is enough. If you aren't willing to make decent contributions to the site, don't expect to be here much longer. I am closing this thread as it does not seem to have any point except to act as an annoyance.

! Moderator Note esbo, please be aware of copyright issues when you are copying things over from other sources. I have trimmed your post in accordance with this.

Then we have been talking past each other, as I suspected. This thread is about the vegan movement, not so much the more general ethical quandaries, and that is what I was addressing. I do don't deny what you are saying and have even agreed with it in a few posts (including the one you quoted).

ACG52 has been suspended for his continued abusive behavior towards other people. I feel like we're dealing with a lot of this lately.

What I was describing was more a difference in context. I suppose the names are fairly interchangeble if you are not talking about mass spec. You could call a polyatomic ion a molecular ion and be correct - the names would indicate that they are the same thing, since nitrate and carbonate, etc., are molecules.

! Moderator Note It would be appreciated if the hostility could end, please.

I can only see one spectra, but the one I do see does not look right at all. There are too many peaks in the aromatic region and the integration is a little off. Have you looked through SciFinder or Reaxys (I'd go with the latter) for literature values for the spectra? It should help you.

Molecular ion is usually a term encountered when looking at mass spec and is as Amaton described, though it's also worth noting that molecular ions are radical cations. I have not seen it used in other contexts. Polyatomic ions describe species such as CO32- and NO3-, which are ions because of their charged nature and polyatomic because they are comprised of more than one type of element. You would not use the term polyatomic ion in the same context as molecular ion.

I will elaborate on my last comment. I agree with your previous comment that there are no set of rules, but I am not the one trying to point to them and judge others based on them. The, 'meat is murder,' crowd are the ones doing this, and I disagree with the double standard that they are using to this end. That is the crux of the issue for me. People can be 'ethical vegans' all they like - I truly do not care how they justify their choices to themselves - but they have no moral basis that isn't wrought with hypocrisy from which to judge others. As a matter of personal opinion, I don't have a problem with the slaughter of livestock for food if it is done with respect and as humanely as possible. I absolutely think those in industrial contexts could and should be treated better, but I do not think that slaughtering a cow for food is wrong. All this is doing is supporting my point that the line is arbitrary.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72758-a-lingual-theory-of-everything/?view=findpost&p=749725 Though staff agree that there are issues with this thread, we do not think that SamBridge's posts are being rude or disrespectful, just very persistent.

! Moderator Note More speculation does not constitute evidence. Last chance, or the thread's getting closed.

! Moderator Note A prudent reminder that the rules of the Speculations forum dictate that you must provide evidence for your claims. I suggest you do this or the thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note Brett, I mean no offense here, but it might be better if you refrain from answering questions about content you are unsure of. If you have your own questions, please feel free to start your own thread.

! Moderator Note Moved to speculations.