hypervalent_iodine

I spent ALL DAY doing TLC's today. Stupid phase transfer catalyst wouldn't get out of my compound so my column didn't quite work as I would have liked it to. I generally use a combination of UV and Goofy dip - works fine for most of what I do. Also, the iodine stains are really good for sugars.

You need to stop posting these philosophical things in physics.

I do not agree that this is always the case. I come from an extremely dysfunctional family and had a pretty rough childhood as a result. I do not, however, consider myself to be a dysfunctional adult (or at the very least, I sure hope I am not). Certainly there are hurdles to overcome, but if you have the right attitude and you are able to perceive not the error in the ways of your parents, but the susceptibility for error in your own self, the cycle of 'weaving tangled webs' can be broken. Having said that, my anecdote is my no means proof of what is the norm. Breaking the cycle of 'tangled webs' is indeed a hard thing to do.

As the other two have said, carbonyl oxygen is an acceptable term. You could, obviously, generate a more specific name with a more detailed structure. However, since you are dealing with generalised structures, generalised terms are fine. Also, be careful with your abbreviations. You don't need to make things overly complicated or else you mightn't understand it when you go back to it later. It is much easier, in my opinion, to actually draw the mechanism out with 'curly arrows' than it is to write it (unless you need to make specific notes regarding chemo/regio/stereo selectivity than you can show diagrammatically). That's what I teach to my first and second years, anyway. It seems to work better from a teaching perspective for people to be able to visualise what's going on through the aid of clear diagrams as opposed to paragraphs of text.

Couldn't agree more. My mother's first marriage to my father was an utter disaster. The only reason they got married at all was because my mum was pregnant with me and her mother, being the conservative woman that she is, was very insistent they tie the knot as a result. 3 more kids later and 10 years of absolute hell and they finally went their separate ways.

I think that it's very much a case by case situation as to when the 'best' time is, if the time should ever come. If I (as a female) were to get married for instance, it would not be until after I finished my PhD and I am settled into a postdoctorate position. Having said that, I in fact have no intention to get married as I do not believe that I need the institution of marriage to confirm my love for another person. Recently, my mother got remarried for the purpose of being able to live in the same country as her partner after he got a job overseas. I guess the 'best' time for that marriage was before her visa expired

I find it very hard to believe that you only 'sometimes' think about this, given the number of threads you've started to the same tune.

There's a much greater risk of contamination with open pond systems. Secondly, the bioreactor models have the advantage in that you don't require as much space to achieve the same yields. The set up is more expensive, yes, but the yields are greater per hectare per year and it's easier to control.

Absolutely. But it's better than publishing through a company with no standards at all.

If you read my post prior to this you would have seen where I stated that there is a difference between the time of Newton, Galileo, etc. and now. Now, anyone can publish anything. Just because it is in a book does not necessitate credibility or accuracy. You are correct though, Newton was not an idiot. The difference between the two of you is that he utilised appropriate resources to publish his findings and have them recognised and he didn't just publish books to achieve this. Alien's source of information regarding the publishing company and the requirement for books published in HK to have copies given to the library came from two different sources. You do not have to work with a publishing house to be familiar with foreign policies. In any case, insane_alien does not work for that (or in fact any) publishing company. I myself could not find a single thing on the publishing house you listed until you linked the website. On a final note, ISBN's are pretty easy to look up.

My point still stands about the use of books as a medium to convey scientific data in today's society. Any idiot can make a book and get it published, but it doesn't mean anything unless it is published but a reputable and thorough publishing company, such as those mentioned by ajb.

That is correct, though I believe that it does not extend to the brain. Anyway, if you were a different person 10 years ago are you saying that the person you were then is not you? If so, how are you the person you define yourself to be now? Is it not in part because of 'you' from 10 years ago? If so, then if I stand you now next to yourself from 10 years ago, how is that person not 'you'? My argument at the time was that you differed in life-experience and thus they way you process and interpret information is also different, but that person was still you. However, if that is the case then the second stipulation of having the brain configured in the exact same way as per the OP is false. So who are you?

I had a slight suspicion to that effect.

All ajb and thinker_jeff were doing was giving you sound advise for having your findings published and recognised within the scientific community. Writing a book for use as a medium to publish scientific results is not as respected or held in as high regard as when people such as Galileo or Newton wrote their books. This is for good reason. The fact is that any idiot can publish a book claiming to have discovered something amazing. It doesn't mean that what they wrote and had published is at all correct. Perhaps the people who published your book are stringent in checking and reviewing what they publish, I do not know as I could not find anything on them. I mean absolutely no offence by what I say and I am not implying that you have not discovered something of value (I honestly wouldn't know), just that you need to approach the proper avenues for it to be seen and believed and not shoot down the people giving you advise. If you wish to have your results published and recognised as something of worth, you need to submit them to the appropriate journals or contact reputable scientific publishers.

I'm aware of that. As I said, it's a thought experiment.

Agreed.

This is sort of where I was going with my question. Simply making a clone does not make another 'you', as you are made up of both 'nature' and 'nurture' components. Another question that was brought up with by my ever-argumentative philosophy friend was this: if we pretend for a moment that both hemispheres of the brain are exactly the same, if you took half of your brain and placed it inside another person, is that person another 'you'? We assumed that by having one half of the same brain, they had the same neural connections generated by the same past experiences, so their memories, the way the process information, etc. would all be the same. This is true and no one is debating this. However, it isn't the point of the discussion.

Ah, gotcha. Didn't look at the edit button.

This is an interesting question, though I would have probably put this in philosophy rather than in physics since this is thought experiment and you aren't interested so much in the science of recreating someone. I had a very similar discussion with some friends of mine while camping once. Let me ask you this: if you did somehow manage to make an exact copy of yourself, but you were not dead, is that copy also you? Is it really only those two stipulations that make a person? If that is the case, if I took 'me' now and placed 'me' from 10 years ago, are we not the same person? Another analogy that was made in our conversation is in Odysseus and the boat that he sailed in for 10 years following the Trojan war. Another thought experiment, not necessarily reflective on the book, but nevertheless. Odysseus leaves Troy in a ship (I don't remember its name). Over time, some of the panels on the ship need replacing for one reason or another and eventually, so do the sails, etc. By the time he returns to Ithaca, he has replaced every part of the ship. My question is, is it still the same ship?

...what?

I think it's a much more feasible option than using plant crops, since it doesn't destroy food crops and doesn't consume space in poorer nations where subsistence farming is a way of life. It needs a lot of work though. Currently, algal bioreactor crops produce the highest yield of feedstock out of any other biofuel per hectare per year, but they are also one of the most expensive to process and extract oils from. If the people working in the area can find a cheaper way around that, then I'm sure that it has a pretty bright future, but who knows when and if that will happen.

and this is why I'm a chemist.

No, it isn't right. Remember this rule: log ab = b * log a

I don't really know much about copper (II) borate, but can I just say that if you really intend on making every single copper based compound possible, you have one hell of a long trek ahead of you! I hoped you've cleared the next few decades in your calendar

Whiteboard markers and a whiteboard are my favourite things to write with/on (I can't stand the feel of chalk). Otherwise, I like super fine tip blue or black pens or failing that, a 3mm artline pen in any colour except green. Fountain pens and I do not get along.