chadn

I can belief that, I've been forced to drink an entire cantine when I was already fully hydrated. About halfway through I was ready to puke.

The formula for chalcopyrite is CuFeS2 isnt it? What exactly do you mean by obtain? Protiens are produced by living organisms and are organic molecules. A protien may contain one of these elements in its structure, but that element could just as easily be obtained from some other source, probably easier.

Whats so wierd?

NH3 which must then be converted to NH4+ by the plant.

enthalpy and entropy are two different things theres even a way in which to relate entropy to enthalpy G=H-TS H being enthalpy T being absolute temperature S being entropy. and G being Gibbs Free Energy There isnt really anything I'd call the opposite of entropy. The closest thing would probably be Gibbs free energy, which is the energy from a reaction that is not lost to disorder. If you think of enthalpy as the total energy in a reaction released and entropy as the energy lost to disorder then the difference is that energy which is still available to do work or increase order. This difference is called Gibbs Free energy.

just to clear things up, plants dont fix nitrogen from the air, only bacteria and some algae species do this. The nodules on legumes are actually the result of an infection by a nitrogen-fixating species of bacteria called rhizobium. I created a thread related to this a while back:http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7303 Heres a link on the symbiotic relationship between legumes and rhizobium: http://www.ls.huji.ac.il/~nurit/pho...association.htm

The problem is that this is not evolution. Just because the baby comes in contact with immunities from its mother and develops its own doesnt mean that the genetics are changed in any way. And unless the genetics are changed evolution is not going to occur. Its no different then say my getting a small pox vaccine, I come into contact with the stuff, build immunities, but it doesnt get passed on.

Plants are capable of taking up both NH4 and NO3. NO3 is the usual form in which plants take up nitrogen because its the most common form found in soils. However, almost every plant takes it up in both forms throughout its life. Which nutrient is taken up more than the other is dependent upon a variety of factors including soil pH, temperature, species of plant, age of plant, etc. NO3 once absorbed must be conveted to NH4 within the plant, so NH4 uptake is more energy efficient, but plants can only tolerate so much NH4 before it becomes toxic. In contrast, much larger amounts of NO3 can be tolerated within the plant so the its a give and take. Almost every study shows that most species benefit the most from a combination of NH4 and NO3 rather than one over the other. There are exceptions, for instance, blueberries cannot tolerate NO3. The amounts of NH4 and NO3 also have huge impacts on the amounts of other nutrients and their uptake by plants.

My bad, Its been a while since I was last looking at mp3 players and at the time I dont think iriver had anything that big.

really? I thought the battery life was great. I can listen to the thing almost the entire day and just plug it in at nite. Im also happy that it doesnt require you to buy batteries like the iriver. I had an iriver befor my ipod and without a doubt I prefere the ipod. irivers just dont have the memory of the ipod either. I currently have a couple of "books on tape" (yes I know theyre not on tape) on my ipod and still have over half my memory. Its nice when Im driving home from school to be listening to "A Brief History of Time" or something. In comparison to the ipod irivers just plain suck.

Then whats the point? He does realize that this entire point of this thread is hypothetical, doesnt he? Nobody here is planning to kill someone, rather they merely saying that given the situation described, they would kill.

I have a hard time finding the paper disc wax type of shells, so most of mine are the crimpped type, although I do have a few lying around. Their filled with like #OOO buckshot anyhows and so dont get used, might as well do something with them

how old of a child are we talking here?

interesting.......*eyes drift towards reloading bench....*

I was never good at diplomacy

Of course, but if you shoot tokill and only end up disabling them, chances are they're going to be shot in a way that doesnt over them much opportunity to counter. Shoot to maim means shooting at the hand or leg or some stupid crap like that. To easy to miss. Of course I would only attack if I am armed with a gun or if cornered. Far to risky to do some stupid crap and attack with a knife or you fists.

And if you dont pull it off? Better them dead than me. Go ahead if you wish, Im either running or killing.

Ummmm, DUH! In mammals the young are directly connected to the mother. So as the baby develops it comes into contact with these immunities and develops its own. What species formed the basis for this guy's study?

Such things happen regulary and there is almost always an investigation, but even in the most liberal and anti-gun states the charges are almost always dropped. If your in your own home, almost every states recognize your right to defend yourself. Try finding how many people who shoot home invaders actually go to jail, do it, good luck.

Maybe in England you get locked up for shooting an intruder, in the US, you'd get your name in the NRA's magazine, one more reason I love this nation Im from the country, nearest law enforcement is 15 miles away, thats why we hicks tend to shoot first, you have no one else , but yourself to rely on. This is the type of crap tht gets you killed. There are only two "real" options, either escape/hide/avoid or kill. Anything else is far to risky and you stand as much chance of being killed as the other. Sure it may work on video games, but the vast majority of people are not even close to be stealthy enough to pull this type of shit off.

Lethal, if a person is breaking into your home, then you and your family are threatened. They may be unarmed, they may have no intention of murder, they may be anything. Im not going to sit around and take the risk that they may be armed or that they may not try to harm me or anyone else. Someone breaks into my house they're going to have a wall of lead heading in their direction. I know that in the movies the good guy always uses the minimum amount of force, that is such Bull shit, in real life that guy would end up dead. In the military they tell you that if you shoot, shoot to kill, none of that other shit. A wounded enemy can still kill you.

No, Damion is correct. The Anarchist belief is very idealic. It believes that the humans, left to their own devices naturally form communities in which everyone works to the good of everyone else, however government disrupts this natural order. Hence my reason for equating anarchy to anti-government communism. The hippie communes of the 60s are about as close as you get to anarchism, sure most of them failed in what they attempted, but they were carrying out the anarchist ideal. Communities of free individuals working to the betterment of each other without damaging influence of government. Libertarian socialism would be a contradiction of beliefs. There is nobody more against socialist ideals than the Libertarian. Libertarians are individualists, in that they are concerned about personal freedom, economically and socialy. If people end up living in the anarchist ideal, thats fine with Libertarianism, so long as each individual chooses such a life. The Libertarian does not hold the anarchist ideal, there only ideal is the individuals freedom.

A party name, not at all what I mean by liberal. When I use the term Liberal it is in reference to the left, when I use the term conservative it is in reference to the right, is that so hard? It has also, over time become associated with certain political philosophies as well. The English language is always making these small changes. Dude, are you so blind to think that Im a Bush supporter? Get you head out of your arse, I havent even mentioned Bush once. I do, however, associated myself with the conservative, aka right-wing, political philosophy and this is an attack on that very set of political ideals. I have good reason to doubt this study, it may be that suicide rates are slightly higher during right wing governments, but what I doubt is the reasoning that the researchers claim. They state it is due to the policies of these governments, but what backing do they have for such claims? In order for this to be credible they need to have the reasoning behind each suicide, do they have this? Do they have even the slightest concept of why these people took their own lives? Unless they do its nothing but speculation. Maybe you should tell me this, since you are British and work with suicides Im sure you have access to the article. How about you support the claims this study is making with the actual evidence that links government policies and suicide. Because all that I see is speculation between suicide rates for that year and the government in charge at the time. You also claim that political motivations are not a factor, prove it. This study is politically charged, no matter what you say. Theres a good chance these researchers are liberal, aka left wing. If Im right about this then political motivation could very well be a factor. The main issue of this article is economical policies, you even say so yourself: Which in these regards the right in both nation are very similar. So I stand by my claim that there is little difference between the right (notice Im using the terms right and left now, dont want to confuse you again) in America and the right in the UK. It may seem that such policies would have that effect, but do these researchers back such claims with actual studies into the suicides or are they just speculating as the researchers themselves claim. For some reason I dont think its all that clear, it would be interesting to know the economic standings of those who committed suicides. So once again I have to wonder if the researchers even bothered to look into this when they submitted their study or is it all speculation once again. What evidence do you have to support this? I honestly think that the role of government is being blown out of proportion. I dont care what they are, they are not above being influenced by their own politics, beliefs, or anything else. Creation Scientists are scientists as well, do you think they are above being influenced by their beliefs? In something this politically charged, I have reasons to doubt. And you have never met me in real life either, yet you have already accused me of lying, and have jumped to several conclusions on my beliefs, like that Im rabid supporter of Bush.

Not really incorrect, just outdated. The 5-kingdom model has been replaced by the model posted by Ophiolite. The method of classification for plants is the same as anyother type of organism, so yes.

No, a fruit is a mature and ripened ovary. This means that Green Beans are technically a fruit, since the pod is a ripened ovary. And the term "Fruit" is the technical term used. The red fleshy part of the strawberry is not a ripened ovary, but is instead a specialized stem I believe. The fruit of the strawberry are the individual "seeds." Even thats incorrect, most accepted models have a division higher than Kingdom: Domain. Organisms are sepperated into 2 or more domains and so on. I cant remember the exact details.