Now that all products are being rolled into one, I'd like to suggest that any product with a screen and four input buttons be required to have Tetris on it.
I think Dihydrogen Monoxide is correct, as water is combined with covalent bonds.
The way the naming works with covalently bonded molecules is that you put di/tri/tetra/penta/etc. in front of the first element if there is more than one. Then you put mono/di/tri/etc. on the second element. (e.g. carbon dioxide)
Hydrogen Hydroxide would imply an ionic bond. The way naming works with ionic bonds is that you put the name of the first element and then the second element as an -ide. (e.g. sodium chloride)
The difference between covalent and ionic bonds is that in a covalent bond, the two atoms are kept together because they are sharing electrons, while in an ionic bond the two atoms are kept together because of the opposite charges they gained when they exchanged electrons.
I think you're missing the point.
It doesn't matter so much which individual gods we are asked to believe in, rather the fact that there are many different ones.
From the first site: Ronald Cohen of East Windsor, N.J., said he could see the World Trade Center site from his office, and he doesn't worry about privacy issues any more.
"Anything they do is a good thing. I have no problems with it, "he said.
Nathan Irby of Baltimore agreed, saying the program may be a small invasion of privacy, "but it's justified because they have to take every precaution after 9-11."
Still another person agreed.
"In today's world, it makes sense for the FBI to look at these lists, and they'd be crazy if they didn't do it," said Paul Van Oost of Melbourne, Australia.
Does anyone else see a serious problem with attitudes like this?
"The reason the universe appears to be expanding is because matter is uniformly shrinking and space is expanding to take it's place"
Errr...then why would the universe seem to expand from a certain direction? Wouldn't everything be shrinking at the same rate, so we wouldn't be able to observe it?
Then again, if everything were shrinking, wouldn't electrons be getting gradually less and less pull from their nuclei seeing as how they would be "moving" further away from the nucleus, and both the nucleus and the electron would be exerting less of a pull since they were becoming smaller?
I guess that would cause all atoms to become tend to give more electrons away, which I suppose would make them more reactive. Unless maybe the shrinking of everything else would nullify that by giving atoms less of a force with which to pull in the electrons of other atoms.
Slashdot Mirror
Might want to double check that one. ;)
Yes. They're all fucking morons.
The ACLU begs to differ (warning, .pdf). (Index of FOIA requests)
Heh
Perhaps you meant Newspeak?
The way the naming works with covalently bonded molecules is that you put di/tri/tetra/penta/etc. in front of the first element if there is more than one. Then you put mono/di/tri/etc. on the second element. (e.g. carbon dioxide)
Hydrogen Hydroxide would imply an ionic bond. The way naming works with ionic bonds is that you put the name of the first element and then the second element as an -ide. (e.g. sodium chloride)
The difference between covalent and ionic bonds is that in a covalent bond, the two atoms are kept together because they are sharing electrons, while in an ionic bond the two atoms are kept together because of the opposite charges they gained when they exchanged electrons.
Just out of curiousity, could you show me how you did this? It sounds appealing.
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter so much which individual gods we are asked to believe in, rather the fact that there are many different ones.
Just FYI, it can.
The question is, of course, how do we get the "think of the children" crowd to abandon their crusade and understand?
Well, if anyone is seriously interested in learning to use the command prompt to do things, this thread on Virtual Plastic might interest them.
You can find more info on why they took it down here as well as a petition to get the site back here.
Ronald Cohen of East Windsor, N.J., said he could see the World Trade Center site from his office, and he doesn't worry about privacy issues any more.
"Anything they do is a good thing. I have no problems with it, "he said.
Nathan Irby of Baltimore agreed, saying the program may be a small invasion of privacy, "but it's justified because they have to take every precaution after 9-11."
Still another person agreed.
"In today's world, it makes sense for the FBI to look at these lists, and they'd be crazy if they didn't do it," said Paul Van Oost of Melbourne, Australia.
Does anyone else see a serious problem with attitudes like this?
"The reason the universe appears to be expanding is because matter is uniformly shrinking and space is expanding to take it's place"
Errr...then why would the universe seem to expand from a certain direction? Wouldn't everything be shrinking at the same rate, so we wouldn't be able to observe it?
Then again, if everything were shrinking, wouldn't electrons be getting gradually less and less pull from their nuclei seeing as how they would be "moving" further away from the nucleus, and both the nucleus and the electron would be exerting less of a pull since they were becoming smaller?
I guess that would cause all atoms to become tend to give more electrons away, which I suppose would make them more reactive. Unless maybe the shrinking of everything else would nullify that by giving atoms less of a force with which to pull in the electrons of other atoms.
Dammit, my head hurts.
"I would loved to have seen a Fallout FPS"
You're welcome