I'm 5 years out of high school, looking back, I'd say alcohol was slightly more available. You either had to know someone to be able to get it (for pot the guy who knows a guy etc down the line and for alcohol someones brother) or in the special cases of alcohol know the place that will sell to you if you're clever and act straight enough (think send your biggest friend in wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase or going to your nearest "ghetto"). So I'm not sure theres that much weight to that argument. That said I don't think people becoming scumbags or just unable to hold a job has much to do with the legality of their vice of choice, and the whole war on drugs should just be stopped cold tomorrow if possible. I mean really between media glamorization, most people not feeling any real responsibility until they're 20 something, and making it so it takes some street smarts (ie thinking outside of the box your parents/schooling has provided for you) to be selling/buying the illegal stuff adding excitement to the whole thing the current situation is what I would post hoc expect to happen. Also someone ending up undereducated and not realizing the maximum extent of their potential (whatever that means) due to getting high or drunk instead of doing their homework for four years has only themselves and their parents to blame, plenty of people do both.
Yea it measures skin conductance which is related to the amount of sweat (salt water) on your skin which is in turn related to the activity of your sympathetic nervous system (activated for "fight or flight" situations) which is itself related blood adrenaline levels (not positive about this last one) which are supposed to increase due to stress.
Since were being pedantic...thats not "completely" true. Catalysts can also simply bind to both reactants and hold them in close proximity which will only lower the initial entropy and thus minimize the difference in energy in the case of bond forming reactions (in effect making the ratio of reverse reaction to forward reaction rates smaller). The reaction will still proceed via the same sequence of events.
you take the difference between enthalpy of formations of products and reactants CO2 + H2 -> CH4 + H2O gives (-74.87 + -285.83) - (-393.509 + 0)= 33 kJ/ mol needed to make it go (its endothermic)
They mentioned biocatalysts, which could be a buzzword, but also could be real. I remember from basic chemistry that catalysts lowered the activation point of a reaction. Maybe whatever biocatalysts they're using can accumulate enough energy from a low-exergy, ambient source like exhaust heat from, say, a coal-fired power plant, and slowly stitch up carbons and hydrogens together to form a hydrocarbon. It probably depends on the chemical mechanism of the hydrocarbon formation. Speaking of that, do we understand the mechanism by which hydrocarbons in the earth were formed (beyond "lots of heat and pressure"...I mean chemically how the bonds form, in what order, were there catalyst/activation sites on other materials, etc.). Maybe such a slow catalyzed process isn't possible...but maybe it is?
FYI:
1) Biocatalyst is just another word for enzyme, at least in any sense I've ever heard it used. And yea the fact that its plastered all over that website should tell you its being used as a buzzword (or at least someones trying to make it into one)
2) Catalysts can only speed up the rate at which a reaction will occur, not change whether or not it will occur. I.E. At most temperatures, CO2 + H2O in whatever proportions can react to form a hydrocarbon and O2, but these are less stable molecules than the original CO2 and H2O so the reverse reaction will be occurring faster, which will have a lower activation energy whether the enzyme is present or not just due to the structures of the reactants and products. In fact hydrocarbon formation is probably more likely to occur at lower Temperatures than high since here the energy released in bond formation will be able to overcome that lost to entropy. But whatever, I'm rambling on about that..anyway
3)Basically all of life is based on passing around electrons, and mostly between oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen (we'll ignore Nitrogen, etc). Now every electron is most stable when its near the largest positive charge around, and each nucleus is most stable when it has both 8 electrons in its outer shell (due to some physics reasons) and the same number of electrons as protons. The result is that things happen like Oxygen binding to two Hydrogens which allows each nucleus to have the right number of outer electrons and be pretty close to having a neutral charge, but not exactly. Since the charges of the nuclei get larger (its actually the charge to volume ratio.. but bear with me) in the order of H,C,O the result is that oxygen pretty much tries to bind with anything around but itself so that it can hold each electron closer to its center of positive charge. Thus we end up with alot of H20 and CO2 on ancient earth. Then life came along and somehow started using energy sources like sunlight to break these Oxygen bonds to Carbon and Hydrogen and allow formation of more C-H bonds and O-O bonds along with long chains including all sorts of combinations of bonds (H-O-CH2-CH3-etc)that served certain functions for the cell/lifeform. By the time the creatures were around that supplied the raw materials we use as oil this was assuredly all done enzymatically in nearly as many ways as there are types of molecules (to answer your question, yes we do know how to synthesize hydrocarbons from scratch, its just that its cheaper to just dig it up when its needed on large scales). Then these creatures die, and some get buried in the earth or whatever preventing these molecules from being broken apart.
Now they sit around for millions of years, and slowly the bonds break and the molecules decompose. But the twist is that C-C and C-H bonds are much harder to break apart than those involving oxygen since those two nuclie are closer in size and thus attract electrons similarly, its about as close to equal sharing as they can get. Meanwhile the Oxygen is being exposed to other elements (e.g. silicon, metals) that hold their electrons even weaker then H and C and so is more likely to react to any of those it comes across, and more and more sediment is p
I don't know, 10 grand worth of t shirts? Maybe that person should be spending the money more productively to being with. If people (those at screen printing shops) have to start getting jobs with companies that actually do something useful for the rest of society I don't think thats a bad thing but it does suck in the short run that alot of normal folk are getting screwed over and it shouldn't have happened this way but now we're here. I mean right now I'm on track to be working off NIH grants in a year or two as well (pharmacology) and really I don't know if I could justify the utility of that to a bunch of folks without jobs or money. Best to know how to fix cars or something as well.
Exactly, if you're doctor doesn't know why what hes prescribing will work the way it does and is just basing it off symptoms and memorization...well we have computers that can do that better than them.
Have you ever drank an entire keg by yourself? More will happen than you can imagine.
Re:Wasn't this already covered by Ghostbusters?
on
LHC Flips On Tomorrow
·
· Score: 1
Ha sorry I just realized it... Its not my fault I got modded +5 informative, I'm not even sure how that makes sense. I thought it was funny.
Re:Wasn't this already covered by Ghostbusters?
on
LHC Flips On Tomorrow
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you. Dr. Peter Venkman: What? Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams. Dr. Peter Venkman: Why? Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad. Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"? Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal. Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
Wasn't this already covered by Ghostbusters?
on
LHC Flips On Tomorrow
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
People get upset when theories like abiogenesis and the big bang are knocked around by people who want to replace them with religiously based theories because religion is so obviously politically and ideologically biased
You wouldnt have to rewrite the textbooks on biology or even the ones on human evolution any more often than any other subject. Since the writers of the textbook know theres differences of opinion and present all the different models and the evidence for and against them. Have you ever read a textbook on evolution?
Read it again, its a straw man. Noone here mentioned that undefinable things cannot exist. Anyone who believed something like that would be basing it more on an opinion of human capacity,i.e. that it is limitless, (think, what does definable mean?) than some fundamental aspect of reality. The GP was saying he sees no reason to believe souls (in the metaphysical, undefinable sense) exist since noone has ever been able to describe what a soul is in any detail based on a combination of both our experiences and using the logic we apply to our daily lives to expand upon those experiences. Interestingly it seems like this is something we can do for 99 percent of things we experience if enough time and effort is put forth, all it takes is someone to come along and ask the right questions eventually and for others to build upon what they found out in ever increasing levels of detail.
So what about that 1 percent (e.g.why does the universe exist in the first place?). Either 1)It is impossible for us to ever know because we as a species are limited in the capacity to understand or the information needed to answer that question is not available in any form and will not ever be, or 2)Noone has asked the right questions yet, or been able to develop a way to answer those questions. If the former is the reality, you have to reconcile yourself with the fact that theres a few things different from all (all being a whole shitload more than a few) the other things going on and that over time people have been describing more and more fundamental aspects of our universe thus increasing the ratio of described things to indescribable. That fact is what sways many people to the latter viewpoint. And what the hell, its the optimistic approach in the end if understanding the world around you is something you value.
The second difference is that the universe and the observation that effects result from causes are staring us in the face while souls aren't. This view makes it seem much more likely to its holders that the concept of a soul is just an outdated explanation that lives on in human society for psychological and social reasons rather than because it accurately describes some aspect of reality. So having belief in the existence of an undefinable soul really doesn't make sense if an accurate understanding of reality is what a person is after. Souls could exist but until someone could describe them as we do the other 99 percent of our universe why bother worrying about it, it gets you nowhere beyond (maybe) making you feel better about the fact that you will die some day.
actually arent pyramids the most stable possible structures. Its been awhile since static equilibrium so i dont remember the math or anything but I mean its wider at the base than the peak so its gotta be stable right?
I don't really think God would give Himself a physical body like ours that is inferior to many animals in many ways (we are slower than cheetahs, can't see as well as eagles, can't swim like fish, etc.)
We have more stamina than cheetahs (can run over longer distances), can see better close up than eagles, and can move about on land much better than fish. I don't think absolute superiority or inferiority really apply to any of those traits.
I don't really think God would give Himself a physical body like ours that is inferior to many animals in many ways (we are slower than cheetahs, can't see as well as eagles, can't swim like fish, etc.)
We have more stamina than cheetahs (can run over longer distances), can see better close up than eagles, and can move about on land much better than fish. I don't think absolute superiority or inferiority really apply to any of those traits.
Slashdot Mirror
have you ever tried turning the speakers off?
Clinton's victims?
I'm 5 years out of high school, looking back, I'd say alcohol was slightly more available. You either had to know someone to be able to get it (for pot the guy who knows a guy etc down the line and for alcohol someones brother) or in the special cases of alcohol know the place that will sell to you if you're clever and act straight enough (think send your biggest friend in wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase or going to your nearest "ghetto"). So I'm not sure theres that much weight to that argument. That said I don't think people becoming scumbags or just unable to hold a job has much to do with the legality of their vice of choice, and the whole war on drugs should just be stopped cold tomorrow if possible. I mean really between media glamorization, most people not feeling any real responsibility until they're 20 something, and making it so it takes some street smarts (ie thinking outside of the box your parents/schooling has provided for you) to be selling/buying the illegal stuff adding excitement to the whole thing the current situation is what I would post hoc expect to happen. Also someone ending up undereducated and not realizing the maximum extent of their potential (whatever that means) due to getting high or drunk instead of doing their homework for four years has only themselves and their parents to blame, plenty of people do both.
Yea it measures skin conductance which is related to the amount of sweat (salt water) on your skin which is in turn related to the activity of your sympathetic nervous system (activated for "fight or flight" situations) which is itself related blood adrenaline levels (not positive about this last one) which are supposed to increase due to stress.
I figured it out: I also am not a molecular biologist
Since were being pedantic...thats not "completely" true. Catalysts can also simply bind to both reactants and hold them in close proximity which will only lower the initial entropy and thus minimize the difference in energy in the case of bond forming reactions (in effect making the ratio of reverse reaction to forward reaction rates smaller). The reaction will still proceed via the same sequence of events.
you take the difference between enthalpy of formations of products and reactants CO2 + H2 -> CH4 + H2O gives (-74.87 + -285.83) - (-393.509 + 0)= 33 kJ/ mol needed to make it go (its endothermic)
They mentioned biocatalysts, which could be a buzzword, but also could be real. I remember from basic chemistry that catalysts lowered the activation point of a reaction. Maybe whatever biocatalysts they're using can accumulate enough energy from a low-exergy, ambient source like exhaust heat from, say, a coal-fired power plant, and slowly stitch up carbons and hydrogens together to form a hydrocarbon. It probably depends on the chemical mechanism of the hydrocarbon formation. Speaking of that, do we understand the mechanism by which hydrocarbons in the earth were formed (beyond "lots of heat and pressure"...I mean chemically how the bonds form, in what order, were there catalyst/activation sites on other materials, etc.). Maybe such a slow catalyzed process isn't possible...but maybe it is?
FYI: 1) Biocatalyst is just another word for enzyme, at least in any sense I've ever heard it used. And yea the fact that its plastered all over that website should tell you its being used as a buzzword (or at least someones trying to make it into one)
2) Catalysts can only speed up the rate at which a reaction will occur, not change whether or not it will occur. I.E. At most temperatures, CO2 + H2O in whatever proportions can react to form a hydrocarbon and O2, but these are less stable molecules than the original CO2 and H2O so the reverse reaction will be occurring faster, which will have a lower activation energy whether the enzyme is present or not just due to the structures of the reactants and products. In fact hydrocarbon formation is probably more likely to occur at lower Temperatures than high since here the energy released in bond formation will be able to overcome that lost to entropy. But whatever, I'm rambling on about that..anyway
3)Basically all of life is based on passing around electrons, and mostly between oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen (we'll ignore Nitrogen, etc). Now every electron is most stable when its near the largest positive charge around, and each nucleus is most stable when it has both 8 electrons in its outer shell (due to some physics reasons) and the same number of electrons as protons. The result is that things happen like Oxygen binding to two Hydrogens which allows each nucleus to have the right number of outer electrons and be pretty close to having a neutral charge, but not exactly. Since the charges of the nuclei get larger (its actually the charge to volume ratio.. but bear with me) in the order of H,C,O the result is that oxygen pretty much tries to bind with anything around but itself so that it can hold each electron closer to its center of positive charge. Thus we end up with alot of H20 and CO2 on ancient earth. Then life came along and somehow started using energy sources like sunlight to break these Oxygen bonds to Carbon and Hydrogen and allow formation of more C-H bonds and O-O bonds along with long chains including all sorts of combinations of bonds (H-O-CH2-CH3-etc)that served certain functions for the cell/lifeform. By the time the creatures were around that supplied the raw materials we use as oil this was assuredly all done enzymatically in nearly as many ways as there are types of molecules (to answer your question, yes we do know how to synthesize hydrocarbons from scratch, its just that its cheaper to just dig it up when its needed on large scales). Then these creatures die, and some get buried in the earth or whatever preventing these molecules from being broken apart.
Now they sit around for millions of years, and slowly the bonds break and the molecules decompose. But the twist is that C-C and C-H bonds are much harder to break apart than those involving oxygen since those two nuclie are closer in size and thus attract electrons similarly, its about as close to equal sharing as they can get. Meanwhile the Oxygen is being exposed to other elements (e.g. silicon, metals) that hold their electrons even weaker then H and C and so is more likely to react to any of those it comes across, and more and more sediment is p
I don't know, 10 grand worth of t shirts? Maybe that person should be spending the money more productively to being with. If people (those at screen printing shops) have to start getting jobs with companies that actually do something useful for the rest of society I don't think thats a bad thing but it does suck in the short run that alot of normal folk are getting screwed over and it shouldn't have happened this way but now we're here. I mean right now I'm on track to be working off NIH grants in a year or two as well (pharmacology) and really I don't know if I could justify the utility of that to a bunch of folks without jobs or money. Best to know how to fix cars or something as well.
Exactly, if you're doctor doesn't know why what hes prescribing will work the way it does and is just basing it off symptoms and memorization...well we have computers that can do that better than them.
so say both? I mean its like 5 extra characters.
Have you ever drank an entire keg by yourself? More will happen than you can imagine.
Ha sorry I just realized it... Its not my fault I got modded +5 informative, I'm not even sure how that makes sense. I thought it was funny.
Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you. Dr. Peter Venkman: What? Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams. Dr. Peter Venkman: Why? Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad. Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"? Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal. Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.
People get upset when theories like abiogenesis and the big bang are knocked around by people who want to replace them with religiously based theories because religion is so obviously politically and ideologically biased
You wouldnt have to rewrite the textbooks on biology or even the ones on human evolution any more often than any other subject. Since the writers of the textbook know theres differences of opinion and present all the different models and the evidence for and against them. Have you ever read a textbook on evolution?
Read it again, its a straw man. Noone here mentioned that undefinable things cannot exist. Anyone who believed something like that would be basing it more on an opinion of human capacity,i.e. that it is limitless, (think, what does definable mean?) than some fundamental aspect of reality. The GP was saying he sees no reason to believe souls (in the metaphysical, undefinable sense) exist since noone has ever been able to describe what a soul is in any detail based on a combination of both our experiences and using the logic we apply to our daily lives to expand upon those experiences. Interestingly it seems like this is something we can do for 99 percent of things we experience if enough time and effort is put forth, all it takes is someone to come along and ask the right questions eventually and for others to build upon what they found out in ever increasing levels of detail. So what about that 1 percent (e.g.why does the universe exist in the first place?). Either 1)It is impossible for us to ever know because we as a species are limited in the capacity to understand or the information needed to answer that question is not available in any form and will not ever be, or 2)Noone has asked the right questions yet, or been able to develop a way to answer those questions. If the former is the reality, you have to reconcile yourself with the fact that theres a few things different from all (all being a whole shitload more than a few) the other things going on and that over time people have been describing more and more fundamental aspects of our universe thus increasing the ratio of described things to indescribable. That fact is what sways many people to the latter viewpoint. And what the hell, its the optimistic approach in the end if understanding the world around you is something you value. The second difference is that the universe and the observation that effects result from causes are staring us in the face while souls aren't. This view makes it seem much more likely to its holders that the concept of a soul is just an outdated explanation that lives on in human society for psychological and social reasons rather than because it accurately describes some aspect of reality. So having belief in the existence of an undefinable soul really doesn't make sense if an accurate understanding of reality is what a person is after. Souls could exist but until someone could describe them as we do the other 99 percent of our universe why bother worrying about it, it gets you nowhere beyond (maybe) making you feel better about the fact that you will die some day.
How did you know which line to alter?
good shit
Your misunderstanding her, she tells them why something is wrong not whats wrong.
actually arent pyramids the most stable possible structures. Its been awhile since static equilibrium so i dont remember the math or anything but I mean its wider at the base than the peak so its gotta be stable right?
also "scientists" have known the earth to be spherical since at least the 4th century bc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
I don't really think God would give Himself a physical body like ours that is inferior to many animals in many ways (we are slower than cheetahs, can't see as well as eagles, can't swim like fish, etc.) We have more stamina than cheetahs (can run over longer distances), can see better close up than eagles, and can move about on land much better than fish. I don't think absolute superiority or inferiority really apply to any of those traits.