budullewraagh

H2SO4 is a dessicant because it contains free SO3, which is just begging to be hydrolyzed. this is why H2SO4 is used for dehydration of alcohols via E1

i think dorcus was talking about the efflorescence of the octahydrate of barium hydroxide taking effect and dissolving the ammonium chloride, which is indeed an endothermic process

sodium electride? what? also, benzoyl peroxide is more unstable because the carbons at each end of the peroxo group are SP^2 hybridized. i'd imagine that the anomeric effect would come into play as well, with the oxygens in the peroxo group contribute electron density to the antibonding orbitals of the C=O bond, thus rendering the molecule even more unstable.

woelen, the zinc thing is pretty disgusting. sheesh. interestingly, lead should boil in thermite mixtures. and silver for that matter. i'd imagine that the lead vaporizing would be scary as all hell

it's ok. fluorine will burn just about anything:\

just a correction, it's lanthanum, not lanthanium

absolutely. an oxidant? how about, say, a halogen? and a fuel? how about, say, an alkali metal or alkane?

once again, war: "2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end" terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" terror: 1 : a state of intense fear" and "4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands" so ONCE AGAIN i will explain this clear-as-day logic: if war is a state of hostility and conflict and terrorism is the systematic use of terror (state of intense fear, violence committed by groups to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands) then war must be terrorism. if we insert the definition of terror into the definition of terrorism "(f o g)(x) style" we get, effectively, the following: the systematic use of bringing about a state of intense fear/committing violent acts in order to coerce a population or government into granting the demands of terrorists. since the definition of war can be perceived broadly, the only potential limiting factor would be the definition of terror. "an organization that cannot have a "war" under the definition of the term could not have a valid "war tactic"." is a licensed driver who lacks a car no longer a licensed driver? "b : the admitting of a point claimed in argument Note, "a" point, not "all points". " above is a"concession" definition of concession. now what happens when we make "concession" plural? WOAH. A POINT BECOMES MULTIPLE POINTS!!!!!!!!!11111 "You're saying the general is afraid, could you show a reference to support this idea?" do you think it's humanly possible? shall i do a study and interview generals as they lose battles? of course i can't. however, it continues to be completely logical despite your stubbornness. "On the other thing, I meant that the person still views the theft as "immoral", but it's okay "this time"." naturally. this person wouldnt make the decision if he/she didnt view it as "ok" at the time

"How about showing why your assumption is valid? So far you haven't even come close to proving your assertions." through definitions, i have. i need not reiterate. "How does the response bear relevence to the question?" slowly read again. maybe a third time if need be. if you still aren't sure, take a guess. i cannot further explain this, as the points are actually clear as day. "What has this to do with using the dictionary definition of terrorism to define war? You are sidestepping the question." i suppose i was waiting for you to say "fear," in which case you would be admitting that war=terrorism. if you can answer with another word not synonymous with "fear" and actually defend your argument, you win. here's your chance! "No, they surrendered." japan surrendered. they made concessions. hey, they did two things at once! now there's multitasking for you! "Such decisions can be made on the basis of pure logic, there is no need to introduce the emotion of fear into the equation. As a general who retreats to regroup doesn't do so out of fear, he does it because staying and getting your army slaughtered is bloody stupid. It has no point, there is normally no advantage to be gained from it. There is advantage in retreating, regrouping and counterattacking. Logic, not fear rules." the general retreats because he is afraid he will lose. losing when he could just regroup and possibly win later is indeed stupid, and he is afraid to do so. "I didn't mean that the "don't steal" moral would be permanently removed, just temporarily." so the person believes something is immoral, then for the fleeting moment that it takes to make the decision believes it is moral, then immediately after making the decision belives that the decision is immoral once more? possible for those with ridiculous mood swings. otherwise, not so

i'd imagine that one could oxidize bromide to bromine using hypochlorite alone

"More confirmation that I'd right about this poll business came out today. They were all over the story three weeks ago when the polls plummeted to 40%. A week later they were dead silent when the numbers climbed 5% to 45. Now a new poll is out that says something bad, and it's all over the place. My guess is that all three networks will carry this story tonight." perhaps news sources are sensationalist and only report things that are more drastic? nobody cares if approval ratings increase a little, but people do care if approval ratings "dramatically plummet to an all-time low!" "The democratic-republican party isn't the same as the democratic party. " furthermore, the republican party isn't the same as the republican party, say, 35 years ago. but what about the reflexive property? change as a function of time? zounds! "The modern democratic party has little in common with the old democratic party." once again, we have [math](delta things)/time[/math] and that sort of ties in with my whole "that was when the dems were still jackasses" statement. anyway, gerry was a jackass for gerrymandering. he tried to help his party by re-drawing district lines in favor of his party. and do i see 39% approval rating? so much for the mandate of heaven

potential marginal costs vs potential marginal benefits? sounds like this economic principle is the main principle of all decision-making! if you don't call it's because you're afraid of losing the money you could potentially bet. a leader who backs down is afraid of losing more than the value of the stakes at hand. he is forced to make concessions.

"Unfortunately, if you reread the MW definition of "war", there is no mention of any intent to cause fear, hence ( by the definitions) Assumption 1 is invalid." why does a leader back down when he/she figures that he/she has lost a war? please enlighten me. "It also means that you can define anything you want to as "terrorism"." anything? cupcakes aren't terrorism. these nouns aren't verbs. their mass manufacture isnt necessarily terrorism either. "If you can't have a "war", how can you have a "valid war tactic"? " hiroshima. nagasaki. tokyo. a million other examples. it is a valid war tactic, in that it gets results. it also is terrorism. "Might I suggest using the definition of war to define war, not the definition of terrorism?" once again i ask you to enlighten me. please tell me why a leader would ever back down if he/she feels that he/she has lost a war. "Japan did not make concessions after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their surrender was unconditional." Main Entry: con·ces·sion Pronunciation: k&n-'se-sh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin concession-, concessio, from concedere to concede 1 a : the act or an instance of conceding b : the admitting of a point claimed in argument Main Entry: con·cede Pronunciation: k&n-'sEd Function: verb Inflected Form(s): con·ced·ed; con·ced·ing Etymology: French or Latin; French concéder, from Latin concedere, from com- + cedere to yield transitive senses 1 : to grant as a right or privilege 2 a : to accept as true, valid, or accurate <the right of the state to tax is generally conceded> b : to acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly japan made concessions. "It was the Emperor that ordered the surrender in order to save the lives of his people, not the government." Main Entry: em·per·or Pronunciation: 'em-p&r-&r, -pr&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empereor, from Latin imperator, literally, commander, from imperare to command, from in- + parare to prepare, order -- more at PARE : the sovereign or supreme male monarch of an empire Main Entry: mon·arch Pronunciation: 'mä-n&rk, -"närk Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin monarcha, from Greek monarchos, from mon- + -archos -arch 1 : a person who reigns over a kingdom or empire: as a : a sovereign ruler b : a constitutional king or queen 2 : one that holds preeminent position or power Main Entry: rul·er Pronunciation: 'rü-l&r Function: noun 1 : one that rules; specifically : SOVEREIGN Main Entry: 1sov·er·eign Variant(s): also sov·ran /'sä-v(&-)r&n, -v&rn also 's&-/ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Old French, from soverain, adjective 1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : ARBITER Main Entry: sov·er·eign·ty Variant(s): also sov·ran·ty /-tE/ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain 1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it 2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence 3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state "So does this mean he would consider the lesser option to now be "moral"?" not necessarily

methinks you put words in pangloss' mouth. remember my quote: "these assumptions may have been infantile had they actually been made"? then you mentioned the fact that a bunch of people think bush hates black people. meanwhile, i had only said that the assumptions pointed out by pangloss could have been infantile had they been made (by spike lee, the guy we were talking about) now that you admit you weren't actually responding to anything, i guess we can move on

"That part's my contribution of opinion. You know, The Thing We Do here." a short chronology of posts i have made/responded to in this thread: -you made the statement that spike lee made assertions that bush hates black people because he's republican -i disagreed with your statement -douglas said that because kanye west and a host of others say that bush hates black people, spike lee must also believe that bush hates black people -i said that what spike lee believes doesn't necessarily depend on what kanye west and a bunch of internet bloggers believe does this not sound ridiculous to anybody?

if you add conc H2SO4 you'll dessicate the conc HCl, and so you'll lose HCl gas. if you use an excess of the conc HCl, it could help in the protonation, although not particularly much, as the protonation and nucleophilic substitution should proceed easily enough anyway. the EtCl should be miscible with ethanol, but it does boil at 12.3 celsius. i would advise you to just reflux the EtOH and HCl for awhile, then distill your product. EtCl is miscible with ether, so make a solution and add your triethylamine, which also is miscible with ether. reflux for awhile. it should go forward easily enough

i'd look at electromotive potentials, not electronegativities.

use any ethyl halide. perhaps you should reflux? EtOH ---(conc HCl)---> EtCl+H2O (protonation, nucleophilic substitution)

just to follow up on the "space" thing jdurg was talking about. the bonding P orbital in each I atom is gigantic, while the bonding orbital in N is tiny. thus, orbital overlap is pretty poor

"Why do I get the feeling that that was the conclusion you wanted to reach? You spread the definition of terror so wide that it no longer defines anything." is there a point to be made here? if so, please feel free to disprove my logic. note: all definitions seen above came from http://www.m-w.com ""ish"? That allows a pretty broad generalisation for your definition doesn't it? Please define "ish"." the -ish in this case is effectively meant to say that even the "cleanest" wars can be classified as terrorism. "If we go back to Websters, we find "War" defined as; "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations" As a terrorist org is not a nation or state, it cannot have a "War". " by this definition, there cannot be a war on terrorism. also, there cannot be a war on drugs, a war on poverty, etc for that matter. unless you consider small tribes to be states/nations, a whoooole lot of conflicts that are historically viewed as "wars" never happened. do you still agree with the above definition or do you believe it is too specific? "terrorist org is not a nation or state, it cannot have a "War"." please note that we're discussing the validity of terrorism as a war tactic, not whether or not terrorist organizations can have wars. "Military action (war) may result in intense fear in the enemy populace, but the intent is to destroy the enemies military capabilities. Whereas the intent of a terrorist is to cause fear in the civillian populace." i disagree with the first part. the intent of war is to bring about enough fear in a government (see definition of terrorism) in order to force them to give up their cause and make concessions (see definition of terrorism). if they don't have an army to defend themselves, well, they should be afraid of the other army that could rape, burn and pillage. interestingly, japan made concessions only after the US targeted civilians in tokyo (firebombing) and nagasaki and hiroshima (nukes) (see terrorism). i feel like i'm repeating myself. "Is showing my pet spider to an arachnophobe a terrorist act? Or just a prank?" it is a terrorist act if "terror" is defined by any of the first two definitions stated by webster, those being: "1 : a state of intense fear 2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT" it is also a "prank," as it is a "malicious act." "It touches an area I've sometimes wondered about. "Can a person commit an act that they view as immoral?" If they can justify the act to themselves, then do they now view it as "moral"? Not talking about terrorism in particular here, just wondering about things in general. Your thoughts?" absolutely. consider the concept of marginal benefits. if one has, say, two options and both are "immoral" to that individual, if exhibiting rational behavior, this person will choose the option that is less immoral in his/her opinion. apparently some people disagree with me:rolleyes:

these assumptions may have been infantile had they actually been made

...yes... it is a markownikoff addition, so that is to be assumed

hydrate propene

just mix the two, maybe heat a little. i dont think heat is required. you'll end up with a precipitate. just gravity filter