CaptainPanic

You quoted the following from that link: But a quick Google search revealed that according to the UN, worldwide: What I have said all along: Muslim countries, not even Saudi-Arabia, are either extremely rich or poor... they're quite average.

I checked it (in Dutch) because I actually just went to the drycleaners (again) and gave them my money (again). Therefore, I searched in my local area. I got no hits that made sense... perhaps I should have tried it in English too before posting it here. Because of your post, I searched again, and I'll be damned. Instead of just advertising it as it is, the Dutch stores call it "Wash & Wear" (in English!). Who would search for that? Silly marketing strategies that use English terms all the time... tsk. English speaking people might not be aware, but in non-English speaking countries, it's quite common to use English terms for marketing reasons. Makes it sound more hip or fashionable. Anyway, I even found out that (they claim that) you don't even have to iron the suits after washing. That would save a lot of time and money... I'm gonna get one next time I go shopping.

So, which color is the heaviest? [edit] Sorry, I am not involved in this discussion, and I am probably taking it hopelessly off topic.

You could just add some incentive. A financial bonus afterwards if the the voters think you did a good job. Corruption is always a danger if people get power... regardless of the system. For the rest, it is statistics. Whether you (1) let all voters choose from a selective group of political parties what they think is best (our system now), or (2) you pick a set of voters directly, both should be roughly representative of what the people want... as long as you (1) have a wide choice of parties that include all opinions or (2) choose a group that is large enough to have an acceptably large chance that the group of randomly picked politicians is representative of the electorate.

I get tired of fighting this discussion... some people seem determined to make the point that Islam and poverty are related, but show no proof, use definitions in a very broad way, and place the burden of disproving it on the other camp. Just do me one favor: YOU look up the income distribution of Saudi-Arabia, and compare that to some other non-Muslim country... then we're talking. Until then, I will just ignore this. I have posted multiple posts here to show that Islamic countries are quite average in an economic sense, and by no means exceptionally poor. And you just blunder in with a post that Saudi Arabia also has poverty. Well, so does the USA. That also proves nothing.

There's so much wrong with that sentence you wrote, that I don't know where to start. Maybe I should start at the front. A color is not necessarily light, although there is an overlap in the definitions. A reflector does not have power. A lightsource has power, and a reflector merely reflects. Light is absorbed by air, and by particles in the air, which means that according to the law of Lambert-Beer. Gravity has nothing to do with it. And finally, you posted on 12.12 hrs UTC, so it had turned to the 29th of July everywhere in the world, so the date at the bottom of your post is also wrong. Sorry if this sounds a little harsh. edited to add apoligies for harshness

Good point. I go out to places where (admittedly) other people have prepared my food... or I go to a supermarket where (again) other people have already invested a lot of time to get my food there in a form that's easy to prepare. Somehow I consider it an acceptable waste of time and money to go and get food (instead of growing, harvesting, cleaning and preparing it myself), but when it comes to washing my clothes, I'd rather use my machine at home. Weird? Maybe. ----------- * Vote for me as your next president, and I promise free servants for everyone.

What if a country doesn't have a government, like Somalia? The entire country is hijacked by different terrorist groups. Should its population (who never asked for these terrorists) suffer because of it? Or what people living by religious rules? The pope (leader of the Catholic church) for example opposes all contraception. Should faithful Catholics simply not receive any aid if they need it because they follow their culture and the rules set by their religious leader? To some extent I agree with your proposal, but we should try to find out when it's unethical to withhold aid from people who cannot change their own situation.

Greg Boyles, what do you mean by "fertility reduction", and can you give one example?

Who came up with the idea that a business suit is the men's fashion in business? I don't so much object wearing the shirt, jacket or pants... I have a problem with cleaning it. You cannot even put your own suit into your own washing machine. It has to go to a dry cleaners! Come on! How stupid is that? And the shirt is the only piece of clothing that I have that requires ironing. A century ago it may not have been a problem to wear some clothes which take a massive effort to clean. People who wore suits over a century ago had personnel to do that for them. But they had the income to be able to afford such personnel too. I don't, but etiquettes still say I have to wear a suit occasionally. I find myself going to a dry cleaners occasionally to bring or pick up a suit after work. It's expensive (relative to washing things myself) and time consuming (I already have a busy life). I do not think that fashion is likely to change soon. But why can't we use modern fabrics that you can just wash yourself? I own a lot of clothing (jeans, t-shirts, sweaters) that you can just hang to dry and wear. No ironing needed. The fabric straightens by itself. Can someone please start using some other materials to make suits so that I can just wash them myself? Thanks in advance.

According to wikipedia, it means "voluntary submission to God", which has quite a different sound to it than just "submission".

jackson33, Let me first thank you for the elaborate answer in your post. I never knew that historically the US politics has always been so hard... The main lesson I've learned is that the US politics apparently hasn't changed much... but the coverage of it has. Politics in the Netherlands must seem extremely boring for an American. As far as I'm concerned, this thread has been very educational and it probably changed my opinion about the situation in the US... it put it in a historical perspective. Going off topic now: Firstly, it's the United Kingdom (UK) that's a member of the EU, btw, and England is a part of the UK. It's like the USA being part of NATO, and Pennsylvania being a part of the USA... but Pennsylvania isn't an independent NATO member, and England isn't a EU member. Many people confuse england with the UK, because England is by far larger than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (which confusingly are individually also called 'countries'). Back to your remark: You pick a very tricky example of Germany and the UK to pay for the problems of Greece. Over the last couple of decades, the richer EU member states have always paid the poorer ones. For example, a lot of infrastructure in Eastern Europe has been built with EU money, paid mostly by Western EU member states. And not many objected, because these were useful projects. The situation in Greece however seems to many people like throwing money away. And there is a lot of criticism, because the Greeks could have seen this problem coming (just like the US could see a (federal) financial problem coming because they spend significantly more than they get). So, it's not a matter of not wanting to pay other countries... it's not wanting to pay for mismanagement. Sorry for going totally off topic... but as I hinted on in the first lines, as far as I'm concerned my questions have been answered already.

No, we wouldn't be better off. At least if a current politician did something terrible, they might lose their office. If randomly selected, you'd just be trying to make it better for you, your family, and your friends. Oh, come on! That's exactly what politicians do too. Sure, they promise to do everything that they said during the campaigns... until lobby group X pays a visit, and heavily influences the politicians. Politicians no longer have many friends in the local pub. Their relations are different. But they certainly try to make it better for a select group of people who have gained access to them. Lobbyists and politicians certainly have fun together, and I wouldn't be surprised if they call each other "friends"...

Multiple times in this thread I have already written that I might stereotype/generalize, and this seems like a good time to do that again. Sorry if I do. Top Gear shot an episode in Alabama (youtube) which explains (in extreme) what I meant by "not liking outsiders". It being Top Gear, it might all be fake, but this is something which I believe can be real too. If this is real, then it seems that you can only keep the peace in those parts by not saying what you stand for.

Then also 100 years ago, people utterly dispised the politicians from 'the other (political) side'? Did they paint some insulting demonic horns or something on the faces of James A. Garfield or Woodrow Wilson, like they do with portraits of Bush or Obama? Are you suggesting that the country has always been as divided as it is today, and that this has always been as explicitely expressed in the politics as today? Ok, so you say that the federal state isn't very important, and that the individual city or state government is more important to people than the federal government. But that's more an argument why people just don't care about federal politics. It's not an argument to stay together. The national pride that you describe however is a very (very!) good reason to stay together. Whether it's true that people would be in the US in a flash if permitted, I don't know. I think at least Europe is equally popular (yes, I am also proud). I'm from the Netherlands, and if you split that up into even smaller countries, individual streets would become nations. But I don't understand why you turn the question around (in fact, I think you avoid my question - but maybe I am asking something very sensitive). My proposal to split up the USA stems from an idea that the country is divided, and that this divide is visible in the way people vote in the American two-party system. The Netherlands is quite different: our government is traditionally a coalition of usually 2-3 parties with different political ideologies, and an opposition of another 5-10 parties. Voters regularly switch parties, and not many voters are truly faithful to their party. Back on topic: is that melting pot a good enough reason to stay united? I think there are parts of the US who (and I generalize and sterotype now) do not like outsiders. Those are typically in the 'red' states. Those don't really seem to fit in the melting pot you describe.

Excuse me??? I think I just gave 4 options, and a link to a whole thread on the same topic, including answers (for labs in England, because you failed to tell us you're in California). But instead of saying thank you, you insult me not once, but at least twice. I do not come to this forum to get insulted when I post a helpful reply. Goodbye.

Do Americans among each other share more similarities than people in - for example - the UK and the USA? I mean, as humans, we agree on a lot of issues already. As Western people, we agree on even more. And as English speaking people, we agree on even more. If you set aside all those things, is there anything left that's typical for only Americans? What I'm trying to get at perhaps (I'm not really sure) is: What makes an American an American? And is that common thing strong enough to form a bridge between the political (and cultural?) differences between the different parts of the USA?

Is the balloon at the surface, or really hanging below the surface? If you push down, the pressure becomes higher. The gas in the balloon will be compressed, the balloon will have less volume, and it will logically displace less water.

Reading the replies so far, I am confused. The posts seem to contradict each other (at least, that's how I read it). A couple of people mention (civil) war if the country would be split up. This suggests that the situation is volatile? On the other hand, and contradicting the previous, a lot of people say that the US is actually quite united, with many morals that are the same for all people living within the borders. Christianity, and the constitution (spelled with a normal or capital C?) seem to unite the country too? How can Christianity unite people when some states are practically entirely non-religious? And how can the constitution unite people when politics divides people? And finally, some posts suggest that there isn't a dislike of one particular party, but instead an equal dislike to politics in general. From where I sit, I really got the feeling that the average person from Massachusets or Vermont is quite different in a lot of ways to a person from Alabama or Texas (taking quite random examples)... and that these people want quite different things from their government, and would probably want to lead very different lives in general. Or am I stereotyping too much? Looking forward to see some more replies.

The tea party stands quite far away from my own values and morals... but I guess I have come to realize during the last decade that there are a lot of people in the US who stand quite far away from my own values and morals. If they would get power through fair elections, I have no objection to them. With fair elections, I do also mean that the campaign is factual, not emotional. I am convinced that the campaigns in the US are almost purely an emotional affair, and that facts matter very little. And the tea party is quite excellent at playing at emotions (especially feelings of unhappiness, discontent and nationalism). The tea party seem to be the populists of the US. You ask me how I see the tea party. That's how I see them. It may not all be correct.

Ok, first of all: why don't you just throw away the food, and buy new food? This part of the story doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Second of all, this story reminds me an awful lot of a previous thread, where the following things were identical: - food is drugged by someone else - suspect is probably known - police cannot be involved (or don't give a crap) - looking for a place to test something for drugs Allergy You may have an allergy. Did you think of this? Have a chat with some allergy specialists. Police I know you said they don't "give a crap", but (1) it happens to be their job, (2) they have the equipment to answer your question and (3) they probably do give a crap, as long as you find out who gives a crap within the police force. You need to talk to some inspectors, not the local traffic cops on the street. Spend some time trying to find out a name or a phone number in the investigations department. Don't just talk to the reception officer. Hospital You should have gone straight to hospital when you felt poisoned... especially when you had it for the 2nd time. Again, they can test for poisoning. I hope you're insured. This will be costly if you're not. Other options Regular labs (universities or companies) will treat this as research, and they'll send you the bill, which will quickly be in thousands of euros/dollars/pounds. Also, if they find real drugs (of the illegal type) then they will probably call the police, and you'll become a suspect rather than a victim. You probably want to avoid that. Also, they will not do this anonymously, and you cannot pay by cash. You will get registered.

If I bury huge pigment particles under a 1 mm layer of transparent lacquer, it will shine (it'll be glossy)... regardless of the size of those particles. And if I take tiny pigment particles (smallest possible), but I make the surface rough with some Jiff or sandpaper, it will be matte. Are you denying this, or are we discussing two different things and do we agree with each other?

Leader Bee, sorry not to answer your question, but I want to discuss the divide that currently exists in the US politics, and if that could be solved by a possible (peaceful!!) separation. It should be an internal affair, so UN / NATO are irrelevant. And the civil war, as far as I'm concerned, only serves as a warning and an example of how NOT to do it. You shouldn't wait until one side simply say they've had enough, and split off. You should act before that moment arrives.

I always thought that the American Civil War started because of the one-sided declaration of secession if the southern states. The rest of the union never agreed to the separation. What I propose is that both sides agree to this. Both sides basically agree to disagree... and therefore to split up. I actually think that civil war is more likely if the core of the problem isn't addressed, but if instead the US behaves like there's nothing going on. It's all so emotional now.

Ok, I admit, the CO2 indeed (temporarily) forms bicarbonate. But a weak base is used, so this process is reversible by changing only temperature (and pressure), not the pH. And that's the whole point: don't use any material (don't create waste) to remove something as worthless as CO2. The ethanolamine is recycled. Wilmot McCutchen, you talk like a politician But turning biogas into purified gas - as I tried to explain in a previous post - isn't necessary if you wish to turn the biogas into electricity anyway. The engines run on biogas too. The separation is just energy consuming, which is pointless of you want to burn it anyway. Only if you have a very large scale system it can be interesting to upgrade it. The biogas upgrading facility benefits from the economy of scale (bigger = cheaper per unit of mass). As a sidenote: I think this discussion is engineering, rather than organic chemistry...