SurfSciGuy

Possibly - did they make large scale testing? The reason my teacher was talking about this is because when he was doing his PhD he had to use some of the stuff and it had to be ordered from a USAF chemicals dump in New Mexico. Usually the Americans are very good at labelling their chemicals, but apparently this one just came in a stainless steel tube with a sticker on it saying, "Before you open this make sure you know what the f**k you're doing".

Catalysts/inhibitors just alter rate of reaction not equilibrium position.

As long as we don't limit what "technology" is. It's not just going to be about computers and robots - it has to be about all technology.

I have a few probs with the theory: 1. It relies on a contentious definition of the perfect fighting machine - surely that depends on circumstance. For instance humans would be pretty crap in space without the aid of technology. 2. The title suggests that humans are a weapon of mass destruction. Humans is plural, weapon is singular. Sure if I dropped a million standard bombs on a city it would cause mass destruction, but the bombs themselves are not weapons of mass destruction. Can a human kill thousands in one go? Not directly, so a human can't be a weapon of mass destruction. 3. Are vampires good at fighting? Most anecdotal evidence (we are talking pseudoscience here so I feel it is submissible) indicates that whilst vampires are very good at seducing young women and sucking out their blood, when it comes to argy bargy they usually end up on the wrong side of a stake. In fact are werewolves, yetis and bigfoots good at fighting? As for the aliens and gene stuff, yep it's plausable.

Hey! (can't seem to get emoticons on my posts, just puts random links in instead)

The effect of alcohol is really wierd. At very low concs it is a suppressant, at low concentrations it acts as a neurostimulant, but as the concentration increases even further it becomes a neuro-suppressant again! Kind of explains why you pass out when you are totally pissed at 2 am, but still wake up at 6 am. And how having one pint in the afternoon makes you tired, but drinking another seems to wake you up a bit. Bizzare

Every Chem forum I have been on has myriad posts on home made explosives. Why do you think this is? Is it born out of genuine scientific curiousity or are a load of terrorists trying to get some free info? Do you think it is acceptable to discuss synthetic methods for producing explosives on a public forum? Not having a go, just curious.

Can't decided between Richard Feynman and Leonardo Da Vinci - I'll plump for Richard as I can't speak renaissance Italian. I reckon we could discuss safe-cracking and the bomb over a nice, hot curry.

Yep gotta think of the surface area - get grinding.

I was a member of mensa, as a child - deeply embarrassing. I fail to see the point of the organisation. IQ is just a test, like all other tests it test you on certain aspects of your intelligence, not all of it, and like other tests it isn't infallable. I consider the fact that I got a first at uni much more of a marker of my intellect than the fact that I scored over 140 on a mensa test.

The history of war is written by the victors. At the end of the day who is going to bring the US to book for dropping the bomb on Japan? It's the same with state terrorism. War crimes are decided in a legal context which dictates that the winners cannot commit war crimes and the big guy is always the winner.

Just found this thread too. Hello everyone, I'll just expound a bit on my profile. I'm currently doing a PhD in Physical Chemistry, specificly in to the formation of Self-Assembled Monolayers of thiols on gold (oo!). I have a degree in chemistry but I also studied Biochemistry and Scientific Ethics as an undergraduate. My main interest is in nanotech, but I will talk about anything really (apart from maths).

Latvian women are quite nice. But I have to say my fave woman is my girlfriend (or she'll probably find out and I'll be sleeping on the couch). Beauty is more than skin deep.

Hate to be a pain, but how can you guarantee this? What are the trends you've observed to justify this guarantee? What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't? At the end of the day - we don't have an over-population problem. We have an over-consumption problem by a decadent minority - we need to change attitudes not mating habits.

I feel we have moved onto a socio-political debate about the extent of personal freedoms and what society as a whole has the right to alter to strive for improvement. As this can of debate involves use of political rather than scientific doctrines I'm not sure that it is appropriate to carry on the discussion here as we are not political theorists and this is not a politcal or social forum. I agree that what Sayonara3 is suggesting is not eugenics, however I am uncertain that what he is suggesting is viable - partly because I have not received the clarification I asked for. The reason why I keep referring to eugenics is because I believe that was the suggestion and intention of the initiator of this thread. I also believe that it is impossible to create a eugenic programme without some level of coersion, which I see as against the political viewpoint I subscribe to. Thanks for the debate.

I do know where I get it from - a cylinder from Air Products Inc.

Afraid not I'm just a chemist. I work in UHV so I know about molecular and continuum states of gases at low pressures. I work with some guys who study the gas-grain interactions in the ISM. I'll have a go though: As far as I am aware nebula are formed from the ejecta of dying stars (bit of a chicken and egg scenario though). Lots of different stuff such as ice grains, but mostly molecular hydrogen. I think there is probably a critical mass / concentration that is reached and the cloud collapses in on itself under it's own gravity - this collapse causes heating and further collapse and then fusion starts, eh viola a star is formed. Not really answered your question, but I think the currently theory of stellar nebula /star formation is a cyclical one (gets them out of explaining what went on at the start). I think we're probably talking about early cosmo (which is theoretical I believe) and way, way out of my area.

Thank you So we can promote one thing and allow it's antithesis to survive too? I'm not sure that that is logical. If we promote intelligence we must by definition be acting against lack of intelligence. Sweeping statement, in your opinion and whatever else you like to call it. How do you know how other people conduct themselves when dating? How do you know that people don't have criteria. Dating is by it's very nature an assessment of a potential mates suitability and is personal, so you don't know about anyone else. Depends whether you think mate selection based on a set of guidelines is good for society? Surely happiness is a factor too, if people are happy with their mate, they will be more beneficial to society as a whole. Surely everyone will have different opinions of what a good mate is. Surely that is just the society we live in now. People are allowed to mate with who they want to. Without overall guidance there is no point to what wolfgang is suggesting. The only body that is suitable to provide that guidance is the state. So you deny that works of literary fiction that explore powerful political concepts are worthless in an argument like this? Why can I not draw a negative or positive parallel? What is wrong with that? Argument is not all counter-point, comparison is a central tool of argument too. Also, talking about historical events is also perfectly justified. I really fail to see what you point is and your objection seems to go against the style of argument used by many top thinkers in this area and others. Didn't you see the word 'like'? hence the "". Go look at the UN website yourself, I haven't got time to trawl through it and provide data for your satisfaction. I am also wary of publishing data without the author's persmission. I said "maybe" indicating that it could be the case, but it may not be, because I don't know. Please do not veil your own mudslinging by hypotheticalising it. Dropping nukes on socially deprived areas is also a solution - get real. It's whether the solution is acceptable or not that is the point. In your opinion. Maybe all the cases I have come across so far I do not believe eugenics to be the solution. Why? Because I think it's problems outweigh it's benefits to the situations I have considered (including wolfgang's). Okay, I won't As I said before, all the cases I have personally considered I can see no reason to use eugenics - maybe you disagree, but please respect my considered opinion. What is "guided selection"? To me it means the state (or some offical body) give advice to people on who they should procreate with, this is still wrong, even without enforcement. How can anyone know the product of a union? I mean we just have to look at ourselves and our siblings, we are all different and have different abilities from our parents. Both my parents left school when they were 16, yet I am doing a PhD. Me and my sister have very different abilities yet we come from the same parents. Maybe if you screened all zygotes for genetic traits then maybe, but wolfgang's proposal just suggests that putting "the right" people together will create better offspring, when that isn't true. What about being brought up in a loving and happy family? I think that is the most important thing. You said it works perfectly well, but it doesn't. So you are wrong. Are the side-effect avoidable and mitigatable in all instances? Pursuit of new technology and it's implementation has to be based on risk assessment. Whether these methods are used in combination or not is irrelevant to the discussion which is one of using one method only and whether that method would work. Yes but it also proves why wolfgang's proposal is flawed. Why have mating of intelligent couples unless it actually achieve more intelligent offspring? There must be an assumption the intelligence can be inherited, i.e. it is genetic, otherwise the whole excercise is pointless. I've argued this before. If you select for certain characteristics you are selecting against other characteristics and these will drop out of the gene pool. It happens in evolution. They have engaged in mate selection based on pedigree (much like dogs), which is a breeding programme. The gene pool slowly dimishes as members of the selected group become more closely related. Hence the Hapsburg lip and the prevelance of Haemophilia. The may not have been aware of genetic selection implicitly, but they were practicing it. I shall in future assume that other parcipants in the discuss are completely unaware of the historical context of the discussion. No it isn't Pots and kettles time I think here, best let this one drop. You are basically saying that your preconceptions of intelligence lead you draw these conclusions. I would strongly disagree that a more intelligent population is highly likely to acheive any of those things. Many highly intelligent people are very destructive. Intelligence has no links with productivity as far as I am aware. Progressive is a vague term with a totally subjective meaning. Cultural Heights is also vague - but I would argue that it is more to do with knowledge and application of knowledge (i.e. education) than raw intelligence. At the end of the day intelligence is only useful if you harness it, by itself it does not achieve anything. It is totally speculative and based on cultural preconceptions of what intelligence actually is. Eugenics is the improvment of society by the selection of genetic characteristics. I agree that intelligence may not be a simple genetic trait so it could not be eugenics strictly. However it is plausable that the natural intellectual ability may have some genetic factor and wolfgang wishes to select for that (hence guided selection) if wolfgang does not think it is genetic then selection would be pointless. Basically, you could argue that it is eugenics. Well this is the fundamental difference in argument here. I don't really see the way our species behaves (i.e. it's culture) can be seperated from the "biological" aspects of our species. Behaviour is part of biology and political and economic factors are part of our environment. I think you are on a hiding to nothing by trying to separate the man from the animal. Our culture affects our biology and ecology and vice versa. I didn't need to inform you of an extension to the same debate. Guided selection involves allowing a certain section of society (most likely the political elite) to decide what a "good" couple constitutes, when philosophically they cannot know. It also completely ignores nuture in favour of nature - -by stating that society will be improved by selective breeding, not by increasing social care and educational improvements. It denies that people mating with people they like or love and forming an emotionally strong bond is as important to producing good members of society as genetic make-up. It treats sex as a mere function and denies the emotional part of relationships. Basically I see it as an attempt to deny an important part of ourselves, a part that has given rise to many of our great cultural achievements and that is free will. No, but you have attempted to justify eugenics as a viable solution in certain cirumstances - which I wholeheartedly reject. I don't fail to grasp it, I just disagree with you. I also think it would be unfeasable to not have some form of enforcement. I agree with you if you wish to discourage teenage girls from getting pregnant (at that time). I want some clarification on what you mean by "socially aware" "social forethought" etc. I keep asking but you have yet to provide me with a satisfactory answer. Does it mean that people from certain sections of society should be discouraged from having children? Does it mean that people of certain intelligence should be discouraged from having children? If it does, why do it? What link is there that these people are more unfit parents that people of high intelligence and from high socio-economic groups? The fact is you can't separate nature from nuture - this is the problem. Eugenics really is ascribing traits to genetics that are probably a mixture of many different genetic and environmental factors. The premise is flawed and it will not work. It has been a point, but I don't think it was the crux of your argument. That was that the proposal may not be considered eugenics and that it is not advocating enforced breeding - that is the crux.

These guys know a bit about low temperatures. I would tend to agree with absolute zero being unreachable - you would need zero entropy, i.e. a perfect crystal which is impossible, of course you could try cooling a single atom - but you would need lots of atoms to do that. If you look at the experimental research, the energy cost is exponentially rising the closer researchers get to zero K.

Current publications on nomenclature can be found at the IUPAC website: http://www.iupac.org/general/FAQs/elements.html#pt I think Seaborg predicted an island of stability below Lead (think that's about 140 or something). There have been quite a few controversies concerning the naming of the elements 101 upwards some of them have been renamed several times.

The best thing would be to change bonding to forces. You can then look at this in an engineering context as well as a chemical one. As far as force go you should probably be looking at Van der Waal's, Hydrogen bonding, Dipole-dipole interactions (both permanent and temporary), and the host of charge-dipole, charge-charge interactions. It is important to consider repulsive effects as well as attractive effects.

In the UK we have an ageing population. There aren't enough people having children - I think this is a phenomenon across the western world. There are mixed messages about population growth on the world scale, even the UN does not think it is cut and dried. If exponential population growth were to occur it would probably be from developing countries - we have no rights to impose population control programmes on these nations. The best thing to do would be to encourage development in these nations as increased development leads to a fall in birth rates (by following the example of our own societies). As far as I am aware there is no population explosion in the states for example - it does worry me that either some people think that there is or that people want to think that there is so they can implement eugenics through the back door. As for China, the government assures the UN that the days of rural female baby killings are over - the Chinese government never supported these, however they were a widespread phenomenon in rural China. Basically males are more desirable when it comes to working on farms - rural families need all the income they can get to survive. China is in a state of massive developmental change and information is still difficult to get, however Urban populations are on the rise and rural populations are decreasing. The earnings potential of Urban females and urban males is more similar than that of their rural counterparts, so there is less need to have a male child.