Hailstorm

For #5 there are 3 moles of Na2CrO4: so you would have 3 x 2 = 6 moles of Na+ and 3 x 1 = 3 moles of CrO4, be careful with your stoichiometry. I'm not entirely clear what you mean when you're referring to only considering the anion, in this particular case you have an excess of anion so all (you will learn about partial soluble salts later), of the cation is capable of precipitating. As Studiot pointed out, in #4 you have an excess of cations so once you've used all the anions you have remaining cations in solution. It is necessary to look at the relative concentrations of each and find the limiting reagent, you can "ignore" the excess reagent, but only after you've correctly identified it as such.

If you consider your rants and how you "quite frankly don't care" a debate perhaps you should... forget it. You've never clearly stated any argument other than "Boo-hoo I want cheaper electricity and you should have to look at stupid windmills." I've more than accepted the fact that the issue changes significantly depending on what side you view it from. If you're unaffected by the negatives of a proposal, but you stand to benefit from the positives of course you support it. If you're getting screwed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars just for the hell of it, then you probably care. This is the whole concept behind NIMBY, everybody wants to benefit from something (a landfill for instance) but nobody actually wants the landfill near them. Ohh, and for the record: Where exactly was I being irrational?

You can disagree with me all you want, people pay hundreds of thousands->millions of dollars (more than an equivilent) for quality ocean-view lots. The windmills look like absolute crap, and do nothing whatsoever to foster what is desired in an ocean view lot. Until you're actually willing to post out your argument in a point by point fashion, which I've asked you NUMEROUS TIMES. I don't see the point in wasting my time with you.

Don't put words in my mouth. That's not even close to what I said. For the sake of the earth, we have to cut fossil fuel consumption. I don't see how you pulled this statement out of you ass. Normally, I would agree with you here. But to this specific situation, the "needs" of the few are too self-absorbed to acutally be considered needs. By posting this, you are poving my point perfectly. The fact that you are denying the fact that energy problems will be of "apocalyptal" porpotions shows that you clearly are uneducated about the situation. And yet no matter how many times you say this empty drivel, you still don't tell me how you think the world is currently working. I can't even respond to tell you how I think you are wrong, because you simply aren't telling me anything here. I think you either don't understand how the world works, or your position is limited to your situaiton so you do not see how things are. You'll notice that I never once mentioned the word human goodness... and you'll notice that I never mentioned that I though malnutrition was human goodness. You are so far off topic that I hardly know what you're responding to anymore. While I agree with you that the reason people are starving is that it is too "incovienent," this has little if nothing to do with the windmills on Long Island. Please make relevant posts. It's amuzing how you are putting words in my mouth... you are twisting my meanings and words... probably to avoid addressing the acutal situation... Are you just trying to personally annoy me?? Inconvienent is certainly not the right word... its simply impossible, as unfortunate as it may be. The costs to switch completely to windpower overnight would be staggering. The changes to alternative energy needs to happen gradually, on the local level. That is what I meant... WOW, what a hypocritical statement! First you are blaming me for trying to "take away the rights of the individual for the greater human good" by "forcing" them to so inconvienced to have to look at a windmill five miles away from their homes. Then, you switch completely by suggesting that we take away people's rights to drive SUV's to work, and force them to ride bicycles so humanity can benefit from clean air. That's a turn around I didn't expect. So what, is alternative energies to supply electricity not ok but it is for transportation. Care to explain this hypocrasy? On the other hand... I think you're right. We do need to do more... that windmills are not enough to save the environment. You are right... we do need to make environmentalism a global effort. But it has to start at the local level. Do you think all the countries in the world will be able to turn around over night and be able to completely overhaul the energy system? It doesn't work like that... not even a little bit. We need to act locally, setting up windmills is a good beginning, carpooling to work is a good start... but it isn't, as you say, enough. However, you are suggesting that because you think it won't make a big enough difference in the bigger picture, then its not worth doing. I say you are wrong. It needs to start small. Perhaps other comunities will see what they are doing and follow suit. Martin mentioned a project in Japan... this is what it boils down to. The communities who are using the energy must make an effort to switch. @Martin... nice find. I'm glad to see someone benefitting from windpower. You see... that's what Long Island could be like. In regards to your "blatant attacks on my personal opinion" I would kindly refer you to the post which you blanket-labeled everybody who disagreed with you "uneducated." No further explanation is required here. So, how this is going to have to work (to put the straw man crap to rest) is that you're going to have to state DIRECTLY in a point-by-point (bulleted style) stating: What the problem is: IE: Alternative energy What you propose to do about it: IE: Install windmills Who is going to be negatively affected by your solution: IE: The residents Who is going to be positively affected by your solution: IE: Everybody in the immediate area without an ocean view Why you feel that you should be able to violate the rights of the ocean view owners*: * First note that our interpretations of the "eye sore" are very different. Be aware that I live on the ocean. While this is relative to an extent, there are still emotional/financal hardships which are being DIRECTLY levied on the "beach owners" (the majority of the benefit would go to others). If per say, you wanted to give the beach owners partial ownership of the created power (IE: They can sell it) your argument would have some more validity, although this would still require their (near) complete cooperation. You also state that "it's not technically their property" which is also bogus. The property was bought with full intentions of an uninterrupted view of the water, as has been the custom for hundreds of years. My point with placing a tarp over/around your house is that you don't "technically" own the sky, nor any of the surrounding land. Therefore, the government should be able to put a tarp over your house if it benefited somebody else (your neighbor next door wants to divert the water to a vegetable garden so they can feed homeless people). Now we're going to use a currency that I'm defining as "inconvienence units" which have a value relating to the "inconvienence" they cause to somebody, whether financial or otherwise. Now state, why, being NUMEROUS other projects that we could embark on to "save the world" which would have vastly more efficient "inconvienence unit":benefit ratio that should arguably be done first (no suburban humvees/people on wellfare if they drive have to drive econo/hybrid vehicles and so on). We could also reduce the emissions from various factories/plants both at home and around the globe (again, in india/china/south america/africa the profit margin>>>enviromental impact because people would rather eat than breath clean air). Additionally, please review my previous post, and restate anything that I may have interpreted from you DIRECTLY IN YOUR OWN WORDS/Or state if you simply disagree, or under X circumstance ect. Also, please note that the "human goodness" wasn't directly related to you, but it was previously brought up in the post. You seem to be embracing the idea. Finally, your paragraph on my "hipocrasy" was both wholly misinterpreted and incredibly pathetic of you. I stated that the way that you are "defending your actions" could also be applied to force other segments of the general populace to experiance "inconvience units" in order to benefit other people. Please note that this is a slightly different argument because it gets into the sticky area of fairness, in that the people who are driving SUVs/Trucks without reason are a direct cause of the problem, and therefore instituting penalties against them as a result of their causing the problem is not as "unfair" as penalizing the residents of long island (or those with waterfront).

The fact that the school board was even allowed to do that in the first place astounds me. Perhaps if they read it next to "there is absolutely nothing other than a book we think is a few thousand years old (and that we've revised as was seen fit) in it to support intelligent design. Also, you should be aware that if any of the "claims" made by the people in the bible were "claimed" today, we would institutionalize whoever was making them."

So let me get this cleared up, since apparently you have a staff member babysitting you: You think that a certain segment of the general populace should bear the burden for something for the benefit of everybody else. Your argument to support this is: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" Directly, (without strawmanning) I believe your argument to state that: "The benefit of the many outweigh the desires/rights of the few" since you're directly relating to violating the desires/rights of a certain populace in order to benefit everybody. In other words, you're directly advocating "blind altruism" for the "sake of humanity" on the basis of "human goodness." My counter argument is that: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" by and large, does not apply to current human-human interactions. You respond by saying that "we're too uneducated" and slippery sloping your way to the apocalypse. I tell you that you're the "uneducated one," and that you simply do not understand how the world is currently working. You demand "proof/evidence" from me to that the world doesn't operate on blind altruism. I point out that we let huge numbers of people suffer/die every day because it would inconvience us too much to help them. Suggesting that this "human goodness" is a completely bogus idea. You respond with: You only want to apply this locally, because it would just be too damn inconvienient for you to apply it globally. + "Every little thing counts" To which I will respond: You seem to be viewing the installation of the wind mills as the ONLY solution to the problem. I personally believe that there are many other, more attractive solutions which should be ratafied BEFORE you consider forcing the minority population into paying to benefit you. If you banned SUV/Trucks from the general popluation who couldn't demonstrate sufficient need, if you forced people to ride their bikes to work if possible, if you forced factories to adhere to higher standards of emissions (globally, since really we're getting alot of the crap floating over from india/china where the envrioment is by far a secondary concern to feeding the populace), and so forth.

How many people die of malnourishment every day? Time to stop drinking starbucks, sell your computer, ride your bike to work, and start feeding.

I think the best way I can describe it is: Chemistry with a purpose. Biochemistry is generally regarded as one of the hardest undergrad degrees, and often takes people 5 years to get their bachelors. The upper level biochem classes are also among the most difficult classes offered (bio can field comparative anatomy..) The major problem with people talking about "Biochemistry" is that it is a blanket term encompassing literally EVERYTHING to do with organism function at the molecular level. If I had to describe biochemistry in one word, it would have to be "mechanisms."

How the hell are the capillaries in the PCR machine contaminated, you should be running closed tubes. As for the western, it's monkey buisness. The only things you need to work out are the antibody specificity and optimum concentrations. The only other thing that can really give you problems is using crappy/old developer. Western's really shouldn't serve as a replacement for realtime pcr consideirng they look at completely different things. Westerns are also qualitative generally speaking unless you know the antibody binding affinity (and have fun with that).

What's the price difference for a waterfront/bluff view lot and somewhere else? Furthermore, the waterfront/bluff lots have houses BUILT AROUND VIEWING THE WATER. The other lots simply do not. I know many people who simply will not move somewhere where they lack an uninterrupted view of the water.

You really think the people with views of the water are seeing smoke stacks out that portion of their house? Go tell the people driving SUVs to trade their car in for a hybrid. Sure it might look and drive like crap, but they'd be doing their part to prevent air pollution.

You guys have presented some of the worst arguments in existance. The argument that these people should "suck it up to benefit everybody else" is bullpoop. Stop drinking starbucks and put it towards more efficient houses. Build a smaller house, leave the heat lower, don't turn the air conditioning so high, eat cheap cuts of meat.... blah blah blah. These people paid a premium for their lots, and the lots ARE NOT REPLACABLE. They can't move to a new neighboorhood and plant the same trees.

Several approaches to the problem: 1: Sticky fly tape above something of interest (glass of red wine works) 2: A bowl/glass (more surface area) containing a scented soap (they like most of them), the soap breaks the surface tension so when they land they sink. 3: A bottle of nearly empty balsamic vinegar with a very small hole punched in the metal cap (they can get in fine, but have a royally hard time getting out)

Of course, and any other idiot that tries to claim that evolution violates thermodynamics.

The idiot who started the topic and claimed that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics.

According to your bastardized understanding of theormdynamics, growing a plant from a seed violates the second law.

There are no flaws in the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING in Evolution is a transitional form. ID stands up no no logic whatsoever, nor does it have anything to support it other than Ad Verecundiam arguments such as the one you just presented. The ID arugments are WORSE THAN those used to "prove" the theory that the Earth was the center of the universe. At the very least, the latter provided legitimate replicatable evidence (that of sitting in your back yard, watching everything revolve around you in the sky). ID has NOTHING to support it. The funniest thing that you guys claim is that current structures are "too complex" to have evolved. By Chaos theory, nothing is "too complex" to evolve, and an entire human could suddenly be spontaneously generated next to you. At the very most, you could claim that you believe that such structures are UNLIKELY to have evolved, not that they COULD NOT have evolved.

INTERVIEW WITH A PHYSICIST: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33 KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling. Enlarge ImageEvangelical Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University. Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power." Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible. According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise. The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision." "We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said. Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis. "Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling." Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture. "Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how." "Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'" Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics. "Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus." Adapted from: The Onion

Living or non living has nothing to do with whether or not sucrose can diffuse across a membrane. You'd have to consider several factors: the thickness of the tubing, the expansion of the membrane, ability to burst ect.