CaptainPanic

LaurenClark4, none of the people in this thread have been active on the forum since 2009. I think Google deceived you. Ok, I admit, it's worth a try anyway... but chances are small. Personally, I only crave coffee in the morning.

Personally, I think it all has to do with intention. As much as I appreciate iNow's posts, I agree that calling someone a jackass seems a deliberate insult with the intention to hurt. It will achieve nothing, and serves no other purpose in the discussion, other than an expression of annoyance with the other person. You can insult someone with the intention of getting the discussion back on track. You can insult with the intention to hurt someone's feelings. (And many other intentions). I think it matters what you try to achieve... although insults are always questionable. Language offers too many possibilities to draw any clear lines regarding this rule... and different people will receive your posts differently. Interpretation and opinions will always be a part of this. There is no clear boundary, so it is best to stay well clear of it. Just my 2 cents.

I think they are DC, so no frequency at all, because nothing is alternating like in an AC circuit. It's just a guess though, and I am no expert in electric circuits.

Bond energy is the energy to make/break a single bond between two atoms. I think this is only used for covalent bonds. If you have a strong bond, you need to put in more energy to break it. The "enthalpy changes" are the sum of breaking and creating all the bonds in a reaction. In a chemical reaction, usually more than 1 bond gets broken at the same time (or in the same blink of an eye - not exactly the same time, but nearly). The enthalpy itself (not the change) is just the state of the material at a certain time. It's like an altitude: you are now at 245 meters above sea level. You can have so many J/kg of enthalpy. You can change the enthalpy of a material by adding heat (which can cause a reaction, or melting, or evaporation, or nothing except just heating it up), or removing heat. And Hess's Law says that it doesn't matter by which route you arrived at a certain place. Using the metaphor of the altitude. It doesn't matter if you first climbed to the peak of a mountain, and then back down, or straight to a certain place. If you arrived at 245 m above sea level, the route doesn't matter: your potential energy is the same. Same for enthalpy. The enthalpy of formation is a specific type of change-of-enthalpy. It's a very specific reaction. It's the reaction from the elements to the material. So, the enthalpy of formation of methanol is: Carbon (graphite) + Oxygen (gas) + hydrogen (gas) --> methanol. Of course, this is an unlikely reaction to happen... but it's just a practical definition. Hope that helps.

Please stop the bickering, guys. It's probably not an insult anyway. I suggest to open a new thread when you want to discuss eating habits. This is not about what is a good lunch, It's about the distribution of moisture in fries. It does, but only from the outside. If you would fry the potatoes so long that they become completely dry, they would have the texture of crisps (potato chips). In fries, the inside of the potato is still soft, and still contains moisture. Given enough time, that moisture from the inside will distribute evenly across the whole potato, and make that crunchy outside soft. A vacuum is not gonna change that. In fact, I don't see any solution to the question, other than frying the potatoes until they are completely dry (but that's not the same taste - and I wouldn't want to eat it... ).

Posts do get judged by the content, also from newcomers. But only scientific posts get the scientific treatment. I think that this scientific thinking is rooted deeply in this forum, and there is little to complain about. But, when for whatever reason the science just totally fails in a discussion, this scientific thinking will be replaced by social rules. And very often, that will result in a situation which seems to be an argument between the frequent visitors (the "experts") against often just one person. But actually, it's an attempt by the frequent visitors (the "experts") to explain what is needed to get the scientific treatment (although I admit we can be even more polite in that - I think as a rule, this is a decent forum). The forum is open to anyone. But we have rules and etiquette. And those extend a little further than just the scientific method. Note that the large, large majority of people who find themselves in a situation of "the Experts vs. the Newcomer" will have ignored the etiquette completely (probably never even read it), and often will have broken numerous rules too... and often started the discussion with a crackpot idea which has little or nothing to do with science, other than breaking some laws of physics. If you fail to live by the rules of ANY group, you get a warning. Multiple failures to live by the rules will get you kicked out of the group. Then it's the group against the outsider. Social rules are all that matter then, and the scientific method is irrelevant. So, while there is a deliberate overlap between the scientific method and the forum rules, science does not provide any method to correct people that misbehave (other than asking to please reconsider something, which we ask before getting nasty). Social rules extend further, and they are sometimes necessary when dealing with humans. Social interactions... It's nasty business, but sometimes it's the only option, even to a scientist... p.s. These are my words, even though it may sound like I speak for the forum. I don't.

Fries are crispy because the outside is very dry. But the inside of the fries is still moist. The fact that it becomes soggy (I think) is that the moisture inside the fries is distributed more evenly. So, vacuum will not help at all, because the moisture is already inside the fries. I think your only option is to give a different type of lunch. You should eat your fries when they are still warm, or not at all.

Then we need a new troll. ... Actually, what we need is a good troll. We need a troll who understands the concept of brevity, spelling, grammar. And the troll should especially be good at hiding the fallacies. It's fun to read a post, and just know that there's something fishy about it, but not being able to figure it out. Why do modern trolls always have to write such huge posts, with terrible spelling/grammar? And why can't they at least make a decent point? Trolling 101 says your argument should follow these guidelines: - Introduction (opinionated) - Method (fallacy) - Results (fabricated data, cherry picking or exaggeration) - Conclusion (ta-dah!) Seriously, I remember that in the good old days, trolls were of much better standard than today. *waves a cigar through the air* [edited because it deserves a -1 to make a mistake in the sentence where you complain about spelling and grammar]

That is actually plausible, since this thread has existed on this forum since 2002. Also, regrettably, it is the only part of your post that makes sense. I apologise that I don't even reply to the rest of your post, but let me just quote one sentence that I think is quite illustrative of its quality. I advise you the following: 1. Don't reply to threads that are dead for 8 years. 2. Please write 1 topic per post. Your post contains at least one million topic, of which only one was on topic. 3. Check what you just wrote, to remove mistakes.

If you take my comment literally, I was wrong. It would be quite weird if literally nobody would ever agree with her on anything. It was a response to the OP, which seems to suggest there are only two sides: the experts vs. the (supposedly brilliant, but ignored and ridiculed) newbies. Actually, online forums are studied by scientists too. And I wouldn't be surprised if most of your comments are correct, and can even be quantified... but I am too lazy to look up any studies. Anyway, I don't think this forum is any exception. If anything, I think this place is one of the politest places on the internet. But since I am too lazy to look it up, I can't quantify that. From a sociological point of view, it is perhaps even to be expected that people who meet on a forum every day will start to behave as a group. If you arrive here with only a few posts and no reputation, you do need to gain trust from the group. Of the top of my head, I cannot think of any social group where this is not the case. I would be interested to hear of any group where newcomers are immediately treated completely the same as any residents. We have to find a balance between being scientists, and being online friends. There may be a few cases where this goes wrong, and hopefully those get corrected. But the OP suggests that it goes wrong all the time, and I totally disagree with that. [edited because my post was way too long. Deleted 5 paragraphs ]

Even though I completely fail to see the point of this thread ([math]\pi, \sqrt{2}[/math] doesn't exist? wtf? are we seriously discussing that?)... I am intrigued and entertained. So, I'll join in. So, if [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] does not exist, then where does it disappear into non-existance? Say we have a triangle with a right angle of 90 degree, and sides of 1 and 1. Maths says that the 3rd side is then length [math]\sqrt{2}[/math]. The other two sides have length 1... they exist. The angle of 90 degrees exists too. Or does it? As an engineer, I know that if you measure carefully, the sides will not be 1. And the angle will probably not be 90 degrees either (it might in reality be pretty close, but no cigar). So, you could argue that when it comes to measurements, all the whole numbers, the entire domain of [math] \mathbb{N} [/math] or even [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math] does not exist. Which is of course b*ll*cks. So, let's dismiss this part. So, maybe somewhere between the one side of the triangle to the other, it disappears into non-existance. So, let's try again... and let's say that 1 and 90 are numbers that exist. So, the 3rd side of the triangle is (12+12)1⁄2. In that, the numbers 1 exist. The formula as a whole, which was found by Pythagoras also exists. So... eeh... since we simply defined [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] as the result of that, why wouldn't that exist? I fail to see where [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] would disappear into non existance. And that's probably because it actually DOES exist. But by all means, please carry on in this thread. It's highly amusing.

Of course not. Until today, I thought it was impossible to offend anyone with an XKCD cartoon. However, Queen of Wands, or Divagating the Future seemed offended.

Just a few comments: 1. You didn't get the point of the cartoon. 2. The cartoon does not say one field is more valuable or important than the other. 3. It's about the fields of science, and how exact they are. I hope you've heard of the term 'exact sciences'. Well... sociology is not exact. Math is. 4. It's one of the internet's more successful and famous web cartoons. XKCD is brilliant. Check it out (I provided a link already). It's proven scientifically impossible to offend anyone with an XKCD cartoon, so what just happened here is impossible. 5. It was not even meant as an argument against your post. It just seemed on topic... and linking to XKCD is always ok, even when it's not really on topic. 6. In case you were wondering, it wasn't me who pressed the -1 button. 7. Figuring out the √2 is not gonna cause a revolution... but it can certainly be educational. You should try it. Without calculator.

I'll save you all the time reading that long text. (Summary of the text above): After a huge intro, it's yet another complaint that "We, the Scientists" are united against those who try to make new discoveries that would overturn the established theories. We are all "patting each other on the back". And the REAL great names also had to fight the establishment, ergo, anyone fighting the establishment deserves kudos. (end of summary) Divagating the Future, Ushie, or Queen of Wands - a Forum is a place where people have a discussion, and listen to each other. You're a one-way speech, and you are proud that nobody agrees with your points. You're a monologue. That's not what a forum is meant to be like... There are millions of people that nobody agrees with. Only 1 might be the next Copernicus. All other 999,999 are simply wrong. If you do not even try to understand why you might be wrong, your scientific career is over before it even started. It's completely acceptable if we discuss on this forum, and the conclusion is only that we agree to disagree. That's very common in science. The only way forward from there is experimentation. Not writing lengthy posts. Complaining doesn't help. And posts like this are not going to convince us that you're the next Copernicus. A working and tested theory (with experimental results) will convince us, nothing else.

VelocityGirl On behalf of the forum, thanks for the reply. But I'm afraid that Math Princess has not been active on this forum since Apr 16, 2009.

Reaction time: 247 ms Percentile: 100% (all 20 correct) Still, I think you should improve the text: - "percentile" - I have the feeling you mean percentage. - "* means the % of people you have done better" - I do not understand this. Am I better than 100% of the people, or are the 100% all better than me? Oh, and the memory test is so slow, that I could easily write down all the numbers. I write down stuff all the time to help my memory, so I do not think this is cheating.

Mandatory XKCD

How can you prevent advertisements from changing the opinions of people? Advertisements are the lobbyists of the general public, trying to change our minds in a cost-effective way. Politics and elections are for a large part advertisements and lies, so I just wouldn't trust the general public to be immune to that. Take the example of the jar. If you expose the average voters for a few weeks to the idea that it would be beneficial to deliberately give a high estimate of the number of beans (for whatever reason), then I am sure your average answer will be too high. And if your advertisement campaign is more effective (i.e. you have a catchy advertisement that goes viral) then the average will get further and further from the truth. So, whether we have lobby groups that influence the politicians, or advertisements that influence voters, political decisions are always influenced in a non-democratic way. Btw, there is already another thread that is closely related to this one. I have made this same point in the other thread too.

Of all the suggestions for new categories that I've seen here, Economics is probably the one that is mostly debated. I would make it a subcategory of the Politics section, since they are intertwined, and for a large part even overlapping.

Did you press F2 immediately after turning on the computer? (Immediately = in the same second). Typing [Dell Inspiron N5110, Intel® CoreTM i3-2330M bios] into Google actually got me a link to youtube, which suggests that F2 is the correct key.

Well... you certainly need a conclusion. But maybe I should have said: 5. Conclusion: I tested my idea, and it works. To claim it's "good" is perhaps subjective, and should indeed be left to your audience. And yes, a reviewer can disagree with your conclusion, and say it does not work. Then you need to rewrite the paper, or even improve your experiment (in a worst case).

Make sure to test your idea. In science, we want to see results. So, go for a structure something along the lines of: 1. There is a problem in the world, and it is this: (whatever problem you're solving) 2. I have an idea how to solve that problem. 3. If my idea works, then I predict that this test will give this-and-this outcome. 4. Here are the results, and the outcome is indeed this-and-this. 5. Conclusion: my idea is good. A test can use someone else's data. You don't necessarily need to do measurements yourself. If you present only your idea, but no tests, it's just speculations.

I am really not 100% sure... but the logical place for removing foam is at the exit: just put the exit under water. Because foam is only at the top, it will not go out. Once again, I do not have a clear picture of the problem, so I am not sure this solution will work.

YES. Posters, TV-advertisements, advertisements on websites... whatever. Advertisement works. And that's why your plans cannot work. Because advertisement does.

If you watch his movies, then you will notice that his argument goes a little further than: "Rich is bad. Mkay.".