Since it was first synthesized in 1863, I dare say that it's not that hard. You merely need fuming nitric acid to enable the third nitration. No catalysts needed.
Oh, please. Creating explosives is easy (well, the creating part is easy. The "don't blow yourself up prematurely"-part usually not so much).
You merely need nitrating acid which you get by mixing nitric acid and sulfuric acid. Both acids are relatively easy to obtain (Both acids are sold on Amazon over here). Then you mix the nitrating acid with cotton, dry the stuff carefully and you got: Gunpowder Cotton, also called: Smokeless Gunpowder. All you need is a fumehood because mixing the acids is a bit hard on the lungs.
If you want to up the ante: Use glycerin (a laxative, also easily obtainable) instead of cotton. And, you guessed it: You get Nitroglycerin. However, the nitration process is exothermix and you need to be very careful when mixing the acid into the glycerin or it will blow up.
Those are just two examples. Almost the same process is used to produce TNT, by the way.
No, they don't control the hardware and OS. Merely putting out a reference system of sorts does not mean the total control Apple has over their devices.
If you can't see the difference then I can't really help you because it's such a basic and plain difference that a first-grader would recognize it.
One of the reasons the iPhone and iPad have done so well courting application developers is that Apple tries to keep everyone marching in formation, moving the platform forward without leaving current customers too far behind.
Well, that's easy to do if you control both the hardware and the OS. That's not an option for anyone else.
IR 655, 1988. This was an Iranian airplane during the Iran-Iraq-War. I'm not quite sure how you think that an Iranian plane can avoid flying over Iran?
9XR-NN, 1994. The jet of the Ruandian president. Again, how is a Ruandian airplane supposed to avoid Ruanda?
That's about all civilian airliners shot down during an actual war. I'm counting 3 so far. Unless, you also count the Cold War as a hot war.
Whatever. As I said, I'm not a native speaker and to determine affinity towards one side or the other merely through the usage of an article strikes me as foolishness at best.
It actually reminds me of the Jehovah-scene from Life of Brian.
I agree with your post in general, but I want to point out a couple of exceptions. In English you're supposed to say "Ukraine" and not "the Ukraine" since Ukraine is an independent country and not a part of the USSR. The only people who know the difference and insist on "the Ukraine" are Russian sympathizers, so you're actually picking a side you may not wish to pick by saying "the Ukraine". Rules for languages other than English may be different. Don't agree with me? Then go to a website for a Ukrainian embassy in an English speaking country and you will see that they only say Ukraine and not "the Ukraine". I've been to Ukraine. I know.
Sorry, but I'm not a native speaker and such intricacies sometimes elude me. Seems strange to me that such a little article makes all the difference, because after all, you yourself call other countries "the US" or "the Netherlands".
And last time I looked both the US and the Netherlands were independent countries.
Yes, they're quoting from those sites. However, they're quoting from both sites. For instance, SpiegelOnline has been very careful to treat such material as moderately unreliable.
That kind of propaganda might help them inside Russia where Putin has almost complete control over the press. But outside? With all the incriminating stuff that's already turned up?
I really don't think that the other major players will be impressed by Russian propaganda. The Ukraine certainly won't. The US won't as well, due to their longstanding tradition of mistrusting Russia, in addition to having lost citizens in the crash. Neither will several states in the EU - the Netherlands won't be happy with an "accident" explanation, particularly in light of the fact that an anti-air missile cannot really be considered an accident.
Hindsight is 20/20. You're still blaming the victims.
The only ones to blame here are the guys who pulled the trigger. No one else. Yours is the same despicable argumentation method which would blame a catholic if he was murdered by protestants in Ireland because he used the "wrong" street.
First of all: That was hardly the only commercial liner to fly there.
Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that traffic control flies the planes. That is not so: Ultimately the crew decides the course. Traffic control merely watches that there are no dangerous approaches.
What this boils down to: The separatists put some unschooled and untrained people onto the seat of a BUK which then, due to being unable to make heads or tails out of the blips on the radar, decided to shoot at one blip by the roll of dice.
The separatists have control over a Ukrainian anti-air installation (A-1402). That installation contains BUKs, which are quite able to reach a plane at that height. Also, given the separatist's demonstrated willingness to shoot down airplanes and that they also lied about their capabilities, I dare say that it's not looking good for them at the moment.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Read again. I think that you're unqualified to teach children about Chemistry if you don't know the basics of Chemistry. Pretty simple concept. And if you're unable to understand such simple concepts, then, yes, I'd severely doubt your teaching abilities in other areas.
I was talking pretty specifically about science. And, yes, your abilities to teach science are hampered if you haven't had contact with the subjects beyond highschool.
Again: Teaching kids the basic stuff like letters and basic arithmetic may work. You have just one kid to worry about. Maybe two.
We have 20+ kids to worry about. That requires a completely different approach and is not an easy job if you want to do it right. Particularly when it comes to the more complicated subjects.
By the way: It's not only "what a term means" but also the concepts behind the term. Not to mention that this solution of "looking online" or "getting a textbook" is laughable. We call that "chalkboard science". It's severely lacking in comparison to actually doing the experiments.
And before you once again go ranting: You yourself brought this on you by painting the whole teaching profession with a broad brush. You're obviously now trying to retract your statement and narrow it to the lower grades, but seriously, you haven't got the faintest clue about the topic. You're willfully ignorant and obviously proud of your stupidity because you're unable to recognize it for what it is. Dunning-Kruger and all that jazz.
Try teaching that to a class and you'll see why I picked this example specifically. Believe me, the numbers of pupils who have problems differentiating the two concepts is astounding.
And yes, I tried several approaches. It's not something I picked out of a hat but rather a real world example. Don't forget, the first time you come into contact with those terms is some time around the 7th grade.
Seriously, where does this anti-intellectualism come from? Do you seriously think that you can teach your children, say, Physics or Chemistry without actually having studied Physics or Chemistry? And with that, I don't mean the basic stuff (which, by the way, can be quite a problem later on if you introduce certain topics in the wrong way).
Just one example: Take the chemical term "oxidization". Do you actually introduce that term when it comes to reactions with oxygen? If you do you should be aware that you just invited problems later on in electrochemistry, because the pupils will have committed the definition of "oxidization" as "reaction with oxygen" firmly to mind. And now you have to redefine the term in order to include the transfer of electrons.
There are quite a lot of pitfalls like that. The difference between velocity and acceleration (the latter is not an easy concept!) The difference between weight and mass. And so on and so forth.
In order to properly avoid such problems you need to have a pretty deep understanding of the concepts. That's something I simply don't see for most non-academics, sorry.
Oh, you're one of those armchair generals with 20/20 hindsight. Listen, there's a reason why you have to study structural mechanics at university. Because flaws and problems may not be readily apparent, contrary to your illusions of grandeur you're displaying here.
And yet, as soon as you go beyond the two-maybe-three-children-in-a-kitchen-setting, you'll find that even way back at the Roman empire, you'd find professional teacher and schools.
It's easy to bash things if you don't know anything about what it actually involves. And, no, attending school doesn't count as experience. Just because you've used a bridge doesn't mean that you know how to actually build one. Yes, you know the basics and what a bridge should look like. But the devil is in the details.
Slashdot Mirror
Since it was first synthesized in 1863, I dare say that it's not that hard. You merely need fuming nitric acid to enable the third nitration. No catalysts needed.
Oh, please. Creating explosives is easy (well, the creating part is easy. The "don't blow yourself up prematurely"-part usually not so much).
You merely need nitrating acid which you get by mixing nitric acid and sulfuric acid. Both acids are relatively easy to obtain (Both acids are sold on Amazon over here). Then you mix the nitrating acid with cotton, dry the stuff carefully and you got: Gunpowder Cotton, also called: Smokeless Gunpowder. All you need is a fumehood because mixing the acids is a bit hard on the lungs.
If you want to up the ante: Use glycerin (a laxative, also easily obtainable) instead of cotton. And, you guessed it: You get Nitroglycerin. However, the nitration process is exothermix and you need to be very careful when mixing the acid into the glycerin or it will blow up.
Those are just two examples. Almost the same process is used to produce TNT, by the way.
No, they don't control the hardware and OS. Merely putting out a reference system of sorts does not mean the total control Apple has over their devices.
If you can't see the difference then I can't really help you because it's such a basic and plain difference that a first-grader would recognize it.
One of the reasons the iPhone and iPad have done so well courting application developers is that Apple tries to keep everyone marching in formation, moving the platform forward without leaving current customers too far behind.
Well, that's easy to do if you control both the hardware and the OS. That's not an option for anyone else.
You're wrong. The Windows 8.1 app store does include traditional desktop apps. They're rare but the Adobe Reader XI is in the store.
Also, Microsoft can't very well force companies to only publish through their store...
Actual war zones?
That's about all civilian airliners shot down during an actual war. I'm counting 3 so far. Unless, you also count the Cold War as a hot war.
And sometimes they are exactly that.
You're wrong on the US part. You're also wrong on the Netherlands part. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
Whatever. As I said, I'm not a native speaker and to determine affinity towards one side or the other merely through the usage of an article strikes me as foolishness at best.
It actually reminds me of the Jehovah-scene from Life of Brian.
I agree with your post in general, but I want to point out a couple of exceptions. In English you're supposed to say "Ukraine" and not "the Ukraine" since Ukraine is an independent country and not a part of the USSR. The only people who know the difference and insist on "the Ukraine" are Russian sympathizers, so you're actually picking a side you may not wish to pick by saying "the Ukraine". Rules for languages other than English may be different. Don't agree with me? Then go to a website for a Ukrainian embassy in an English speaking country and you will see that they only say Ukraine and not "the Ukraine". I've been to Ukraine. I know.
Sorry, but I'm not a native speaker and such intricacies sometimes elude me. Seems strange to me that such a little article makes all the difference, because after all, you yourself call other countries "the US" or "the Netherlands".
And last time I looked both the US and the Netherlands were independent countries.
Yes, they're quoting from those sites. However, they're quoting from both sites. For instance, SpiegelOnline has been very careful to treat such material as moderately unreliable.
That kind of propaganda might help them inside Russia where Putin has almost complete control over the press. But outside? With all the incriminating stuff that's already turned up?
I really don't think that the other major players will be impressed by Russian propaganda. The Ukraine certainly won't. The US won't as well, due to their longstanding tradition of mistrusting Russia, in addition to having lost citizens in the crash. Neither will several states in the EU - the Netherlands won't be happy with an "accident" explanation, particularly in light of the fact that an anti-air missile cannot really be considered an accident.
Hindsight is 20/20. You're still blaming the victims.
The only ones to blame here are the guys who pulled the trigger. No one else. Yours is the same despicable argumentation method which would blame a catholic if he was murdered by protestants in Ireland because he used the "wrong" street.
Yours is the old "Let's blame the victim" tactic, which is despicable.
First of all: That was hardly the only commercial liner to fly there.
Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that traffic control flies the planes. That is not so: Ultimately the crew decides the course. Traffic control merely watches that there are no dangerous approaches.
What this boils down to: The separatists put some unschooled and untrained people onto the seat of a BUK which then, due to being unable to make heads or tails out of the blips on the radar, decided to shoot at one blip by the roll of dice.
And that's the friendly interpretation.
Then they got them from the Russians.
And: First they claim that they captured some. And then they claim that they didn't. They can't have it both ways, à la: "We were just kidding!"
Riiight. Because Malaysia has such a huge interest in the Ukraine...
The separatists have control over a Ukrainian anti-air installation (A-1402). That installation contains BUKs, which are quite able to reach a plane at that height. Also, given the separatist's demonstrated willingness to shoot down airplanes and that they also lied about their capabilities, I dare say that it's not looking good for them at the moment.
I highly doubt that a shoulder-carried ground-air-missile is able to reach up to 10 km.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
Read again. I think that you're unqualified to teach children about Chemistry if you don't know the basics of Chemistry. Pretty simple concept. And if you're unable to understand such simple concepts, then, yes, I'd severely doubt your teaching abilities in other areas.
I was talking pretty specifically about science. And, yes, your abilities to teach science are hampered if you haven't had contact with the subjects beyond highschool.
Again: Teaching kids the basic stuff like letters and basic arithmetic may work. You have just one kid to worry about. Maybe two.
We have 20+ kids to worry about. That requires a completely different approach and is not an easy job if you want to do it right. Particularly when it comes to the more complicated subjects.
By the way: It's not only "what a term means" but also the concepts behind the term. Not to mention that this solution of "looking online" or "getting a textbook" is laughable. We call that "chalkboard science". It's severely lacking in comparison to actually doing the experiments.
And before you once again go ranting: You yourself brought this on you by painting the whole teaching profession with a broad brush. You're obviously now trying to retract your statement and narrow it to the lower grades, but seriously, you haven't got the faintest clue about the topic. You're willfully ignorant and obviously proud of your stupidity because you're unable to recognize it for what it is. Dunning-Kruger and all that jazz.
You may now continue blabbering, I'm done here.
Try teaching that to a class and you'll see why I picked this example specifically. Believe me, the numbers of pupils who have problems differentiating the two concepts is astounding.
And yes, I tried several approaches. It's not something I picked out of a hat but rather a real world example. Don't forget, the first time you come into contact with those terms is some time around the 7th grade.
Holy Generalization Batman!
Seriously, where does this anti-intellectualism come from? Do you seriously think that you can teach your children, say, Physics or Chemistry without actually having studied Physics or Chemistry? And with that, I don't mean the basic stuff (which, by the way, can be quite a problem later on if you introduce certain topics in the wrong way).
Just one example: Take the chemical term "oxidization". Do you actually introduce that term when it comes to reactions with oxygen? If you do you should be aware that you just invited problems later on in electrochemistry, because the pupils will have committed the definition of "oxidization" as "reaction with oxygen" firmly to mind. And now you have to redefine the term in order to include the transfer of electrons.
There are quite a lot of pitfalls like that. The difference between velocity and acceleration (the latter is not an easy concept!) The difference between weight and mass. And so on and so forth.
In order to properly avoid such problems you need to have a pretty deep understanding of the concepts. That's something I simply don't see for most non-academics, sorry.
Oh, you're one of those armchair generals with 20/20 hindsight. Listen, there's a reason why you have to study structural mechanics at university. Because flaws and problems may not be readily apparent, contrary to your illusions of grandeur you're displaying here.
And yet, as soon as you go beyond the two-maybe-three-children-in-a-kitchen-setting, you'll find that even way back at the Roman empire, you'd find professional teacher and schools.
It's easy to bash things if you don't know anything about what it actually involves. And, no, attending school doesn't count as experience. Just because you've used a bridge doesn't mean that you know how to actually build one. Yes, you know the basics and what a bridge should look like. But the devil is in the details.