Iota

So do you think intelligent life could likely exist in our galaxy? I know there's no way of telling, but how big is our galaxy roughly for you to think that (if that's what you're saying)? I looked up the estimated size of the universe, one place said it could be ~93 billion light years, some scientists predicted it's infinite and so on. If we were to assume that life is almost certainly propping up all over the universe, and because of the vastness of the universe there is therefore large numbers of life elsewhere- some of it is likely to be at least far more intelligent than us, with far superior technology. Technology that we may never achieve as a species. If this is likely the case, does this mean we have little chance of ever meeting other intelligent life. As for other life in general, i.e. not nescesarilly deemed 'intelligent' by some definition, that's a different case. Given the discovery of life on Earth that can survive extreme conditions, as you said, I think we will find other life.

http://accelrys.com/products/informatics/cheminformatics/draw/ Molecule drawing software we use at uni.

I don't have anywhere near good enough of a grasp on evolutionary biology nor cosmology, let alone combined, to seriously consider this idea. This is more a thought provoking idea that I wanted to share and hear others' thoughts than an answerable question of any sort. I think the chances of life elsewhere in the universe is almost certain. I think the chances of intelligent life elsewhere is high (only intuitively, of course, so perhaps ignorantly too). The idea of us coming across fellow intelligent life in the universe is probably extremely low to nil (just going by the vastness of space and the fact that we can only predict how other life in the universe may come about, and its chance, coupled with the chance of it being intelligent). My thought-provoking hypothetical, and maybe seemingly pointless question is this: statistically, are the chances that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe has gazed upon our galaxy significantly greater than that of actually coming into contact with other intelligent life in some form. Or does the sheer stupendous unlikely-hood of either events happening making the difference in probability negligible? It might help slightly if I explain why I though this in the first place. We can view galaxy clusters which are ridiculous distances from Earth, which could easily contain life. So much so, that the light from the suns in these galaxies that we're viewing, was emitted way before Earth and our sun even formed, and so the stars we're seeing light from, probably no longer exist. So, aliens billions, even trillions of years from now, on the other side of the universe, might view light coming from the suns in our galaxy. I can't really explain why the thought of the probability difference between that and coming into contact with intelligent life came about, but there you go. Any thoughts? Even if your thoughts aren't even that related to what I said above it'd be interesting to hear still.

Chemistry problems on all topics, complete with their worked solutions. Great practice for exams and general learning: http://chemistry.about.com/od/workedchemistryproblems/a/workedproblems.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

If that doesn't work let the forums know, there are obviously people far better at chemistry (and Google searches) than me here who can probably help. Welcome to the forums btw!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLMww8V4IUU In light of the NSA leaks and discussion, presidential search history.

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/lead/lead-and-water.htm Try Lead Carbonate. Can you alter the acidity of the broth without affecting the bacteria too much? If so apparently Lead is more soluble in slightly acidic soft water. Found this, read Solubility of Lead and Lead compounds specifically. The whole page looks potentially helpful with your problem though. Also, does the compound look like Lead Hydroxide, turning into Lead Oxide?

This isn't about trying to avoid being held accountable for breaking the law, it's the preservation of basic human rights. The right to privacy, the right to be able to voice an opinion, the right to fair trial. These basic human rights are being walked all over, and it's worsening. I recognise the inevitable power balance between security and freedom, but it's not as simple as that. In a perfect world, secret intelligence invades freedoms to provide security, with only the protection of its country's people in mind. But in reality, government, secret services are fighting the public, ignoring the law, and generally covering their own ass at every cost. They're there for the peoples' interest, not their own. When they murder a citizen of their own country, unjustly, whom holds them accountable? In the power balance struggle between freedom and 'security', we need to push back, or else they'll happily take down all your freedoms overnight. And once the balance becomes strongly in favour of security over freedom, with no way to reverse the occurrence, it's probably time to click the reset button, and start again. Unless, of course, you value living as a prisoner in your own state. I feel more and more like you should go live in North Korea, Krash.

Please inform me of this top secret information that you have which I don't. I disagree, there is much that can be done about it. You seem to view your government as some form of higher power in the universe; it is run by mere people, like you and me. It's the system and procedure by which our countries are run that allow secret intelligence to exploit it and difficult for us to change it. Completely deplorable attitude, you shouldn't be discussing politics at all if your answer is 'nothing can be done', 'just accept it and move on'. That's right, rest your little mind, let your government take care of you. Stop thinking, we know what's in your best interest. Brilliant mentality. I'd question your being on a science discussion website, if you uphold this view. Lovely anecdote, but that's not revelatory information to me. You seem to be under the impression that you're aware of information that none of the rest of us are, and that, that justifies your defeatist, deplorable attitude.

A statement uttered only by fools, which will also be the dying words of freedom. Your government has become like a machine with its own agenda, the peoples' aside. It seeks to protect itself, and its power; it's a government which is not worth having. I get absolutely sick of hearing people mindlessly repeat what you just quoted -as they have done to me many times- it's by far one of the most unintelligent things a person can ever say with regards to how a given government operates. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Not at all. Look at the billionaires in the world, the presidents, prime ministers, scientists, anyone of importance basically. Sure some of the people who I stereotype as the bullying type at school can creep their way up into the above average jobs, but I insist, rarely, still. With the absolute statements you keep throwing into discussion, it's clear to me that you've subscribed to a belief system and are sticking with it. A belief system that is defeatist, overly bleak and almost completely out of touch with reality. You're taking on the voice of cold reality, but I feel you're exaggerating the matter, and not open to think on the subject. I'll let you have the last word but I feel we're going in circles now and so I'll call it a day.

Have to admit I'm not a huge fan of psychology, it's mainly just speculation. That's different to your original point, which was talking on a psychological level. Agreed. Hah, really? Well, it's wrong to generalise in either direction, but what you're saying is absurd in my eyes. I don't think human society is anywhere nearly as Darwinistic as you envisage it. Ever heard the saying 'the geeks shall inherit the Earth?'. I think what you just said underestimates this statement. You speak as if this is an absolute, I think you're being very unscientific. I thought the opposite was the consensus, that intellectuals don't compete in the social arena because they're intellectuals. Besides, it seems almost axiomatic to me that after school, it's the intellectuals whom fare well in the 'social arena', and those who used to, tend to decline. What? If you developed 'normally'!? Please define normal and in doing so acknowledge that the definition is completely subjective and relativistic. Overall I'd say your view of the world is fairly warped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhcttcXcRYY

That was rather defensive and ambiguous. Being spiritual is a completely different thing to being religious.

Only problem, if we taught all crows to do this, they'd fly past a land fill, pick up cans and fly them back into our bins. Never realised they were such intelligent animals, found this video as a suggestion to the one you posted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=5DMjoqzPcP0 Another https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Z0w9q125TSI&feature=endscreen

I'm afraid we don't have cheese nips on this side of the Atlantic, so I might be stuck. Haven't even thought of a new name yet, I've just looked to change it a few times and failed. I'll probably be in touch at some point, with a substitute for cheese nips.

If possible.

I know that feel. When making change to yourself for the better, you're best operating like a good economy does; don't try to make sudden, short changes, make slow lasting changes that bring benefits long into the future (good progress is slow). Don't criticise yourself too much until you've picked yourself up and in a better position to handle self criticism again. Not having a lot of money doesn't make you a loser man. Just do what you feel you've got to do in life, forget everyone and everything else for now.

I'm not sure it's as absolute as that. As I said before, our intelligence can conflict with our somewhat hard-wired brains, and make goals above that of survival and animal instinct. Well, I guess, but it's not always as bad as that. The people who do these jobs often find ways to enjoy aspects of the jobs to get them through it, and with the way Western society is set up in particular, most working class people are somewhat satisfied with where they're at. Originally I was discussing the burden of being intelligent and having above average knowledge, relating to your original topic, so in that case, the janitor can arguably be better off than the scientist or whatever, because said person is ignorant to many realisations that others of us have. If we felt bad about everyone we hurt we'd drive ourselves insane, so I guess you could claim it's a survival mechanism to wipe our hands of others' misery. Personally, I wouldn't say I wipe my hands of others' misery, I'm just not concious of it 24/7. That's an impossible task to ask of yourself. I take solace is knowing that I am concious of why people screw me over, even though they're not concious of it. I know that I can be different in not screwing others over for my own gain, yet when it happens to me, I'm indifferent to it, because I almost expect it to happen sometimes and I can counter it, because I know what's happening. Coming from a state school, most of the idiots there who were too busy bullying others for being smart, wasting their time not listening in class, I've witnessed them going absolutely nowhere in life. Where school probably quite as good for me in the social sense, but good for them. They're paying for that now by having shi**y jobs and not having a lot of money to spend on doing the things the want. My 'reward' if you like is me trying at school and now I'm getting a good degree which will pay off in the future and have me a job I'll enjoy too. On top of that I don't tend to feel sorry for them because most of them are too arrogant to realise they're in the position they're in because of their actions, and their lives aren't that bad anyway because society picks up after them to keep the economy running. See there's a difference, people in the poor parts of the world who didn't have the option of education, or the Janitor in the first world, who neglected education deliberately for social gain or whatever (in most cases anyway). I feel sorry for the prior.

For me growing up in a religious family, having been forced to stomach Christianity from left, right and centre; that is: at home, at school, at church. I definitely felt a huge conflict, due to the moral and logical contradictions between science, and the false nature of religion. I would certainly say it was a mental "burden". But that's just me. Hitchens was a huge help for me giving up religion, along with Dawkins. Needless to say I'm a big fan.

I agree. No, the weak survive because human culture has unwittingly allowed for it. Ironically, man's evolution into a more intelligent being in order to improve survival chances has actually backfired for the species 'fitness' as a whole and hindered individual cases of survival and reproduction. Perhaps, although I suspect some have a more concious and deliberate reason for it. Not linked to a goal, just weighing up the pros and cons of life in general. This is almost redundant to me. I'm all too aware of the way people act, in the same way animals do, using others for their own gain and benefit, in competition with the rest of us. I don't allow that to interfere with my own goals though. I take solace in realising that I realise this whereas others do not.

Sometimes I think I'd prefer to have not be born, in the sense that I wouldn't know the difference... because, well, I wouldn't anything. But it's pretty cool being able to live once, on top of that, live and be concious of life. Most people go throughout their whole lives, practically not aware of anything, rather pointless. Struggling to explain exactly what I mean, luckily I remembered this quote by Oscar Wilde that says it: "To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."I think if you live without the fortune of an education and a reasonably intelligent mind then, in my opinion, it would be better not to exist. Because when that is the case, their purpose is not their own, it's merely nature's: the propagation of DNA. The bad aspects of living can only be made up for by at least having the privileged understanding how you exist and your significance to the universe, and the universe itself.

If you're able to look for a 'give away' element indicative of a certain contaminant, you could use Atomic Emission Spectroscopy. In forensics for example they can look for Thallium in all sorts of liquid samples using this technique.

I think the only fair way to determine the reasons for this observed disposition to be repulsed by the sight of homosexual acts, would be to eliminate any prior exposure to any form of socialisation, then observe a person's reaction when exposed to the act. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that it's a learnt reaction to the behaviour, rather than anything instinctive. Perhaps slightly contrary to that; although I didn't feel overly uncomfortable watching the video, if I wasn't watching it for the sake of of the experiment, I'd definitely be inclined to look away or close down the video. But at the same time, I think if I saw two women who I didn't think were attractive (or ugly to be more blunt) doing the same thing, I'd be slightly repulsed by it and be inclined to close the video also. I think the fact is, when we recognise sexual behaviour, our brain acts rather like a database that's just been given information. Bare with me here: Rooted within us, our brains, is what we perceive as being sexually attractive. When this part of our brains is activated by the sight of a sexual act, our brain has embedded in it what it recognises as a good sexual partner (i.e. attractive persons). If the people carrying out the sexual act are not attractive to us, our brain not only gives no response to what it is receiving. On top of that, I think, is what we do more consciously. In our concious minds, we only want to associate sex, with that which is sexually pleasing. Witnessing the act being carried out by unattractive people, conflicts with the ideas you WANT to associate with sex/want to see while experiencing sex, because that's what pleases you. Therefore you make yourself feel repulsed, in order to maintain the sexual fantasy, what is enjoyable, if you will. I just thought as I was typing this; maybe it's helpful to imagine it from a homosexual person's perspective. I think it's very uncommon (although probably exists), where gay people are repulsed by heterosexual acts, and most likely because it's so common to see heterosexual acts, they're exposed to it so regularly e.g. said gay person probably has straight parents, siblings etc. Aswell as this, I'm fairly certain gay people feel the same repulsion as straight people do, when witnessing two unattractive/ugly or what have you people, perform sexual acts. Therefore, if that can be proven, surely that eliminates the idea of homosexuality being instinctively repulsive to heterosexual people?