 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 165/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Yes but... Ragnarok! Ragnarok! RAGNAROK. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 166/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| 3 more bloody years. 3 more flurking years of John Howard. Who votes for this guy? Who stands up and proudly says "I support John Howard"? Blarrrg. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 167/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Anything that happens in the next three years is on their heads. Medicare, education, industrial relations, recession and inflation, interest rates rising anyway, more war, slashing of welfare and so forth. Whatever happens, it's on their bloody heads. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 168/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| It's been a few years since I did chemistry but let's see what I remember: A mole is just a particular number. Like "a dozen" is 12, "a thousand" is 1000... "a mole" is 6x10^23. So Ne, having a "molar mass" of 20.2 grams, that means that 6x10^23 atoms of Ne weighs 20.2 grams. O2, meanwhile, has a molar mass of 32 grams, meaning that 6x10^23 molecules of O2 weighs 32 grams. It doesn't make a bit of difference whether it's atoms or molecules - you can have a mole of either. It just depends on whether the substance is an element made up of single atoms, or a compound made up of molecules. Moles are just a way to count particles, it doesn't matter whether those particles are single atoms or molecules. For the first question it looks like you just have to figure out what percentage of 6x10^23 the number given (5.2x10^23) is... the answer should be something a little under 1 mole. For the second, you need to first figure out how many atoms are in ONE mole of O2. The key is that they want atoms, not molecules. Think about what O2 is. It's a molecule consisting of two oxygen atoms. So in 1 mole of O2 there is 6x10^23 molecules, meaning there is TWICE as many atoms. So how many atoms in 3 moles of the stuff? (edited by Arwon on 10-11-04 12:05 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 169/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Soapbox is pretty good. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 170/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I feel it's more important to understand what you're doing than just learn conversion formats - they can come later. The danger with just learning formulas is inflexibility and inability to approach an unusual problem logically. Understanding what a mole is - an arbitrary number of particles chosen to make it possible to mathematically deal with particle weights in the macro world (you can't see 1 atom and compare it with another type of atom, but you can see 6x10^23 of them and compare them to 6x10^23 of another type) - is also important. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 171/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Talking Heads. They had the sense to bow out gracefully, leaving a complete, rounded and nicely packaged legacy - scarcely a weak song or album. The Who, on the other hand, continuted on far too long. They have dragged themselves ever onwards, through aging, through dying and leaving members, and have as such greatly reduced their legacy and credibility, much in the same fashion the Rolling Stones have done. Also David Byrne > Pete Townshend. Especially in 2004. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 172/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| AC-DC win by virtue of not really sucking. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 173/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Musically... well I'd still back the Heads and their sense of rhythm anytime. As for influence? Who is the biggest most popular and critically acclaimed band in the world at the moment? Radiohead! And from which band's song title did Radiohead take their name? It certainly wasn't a bunch of 1960s British mod-rockers! The reason that not as many bands were directly influenced by Talking Heads is because they were so idiosyncratic, they were very much a product of the 4 member's particular quirks and characteristics. They're not easily reproducable or mimicable, which is very different from not being talented. (edited by Arwon on 10-12-04 10:51 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 174/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Augie March!!! Australians, from Melbourne. Fantastic muci, poetic and brilliant lyrics. Folksyish rock music I guess? Hard to describe really. They're not necessarily imemdiately catchy but they slowly wrap themselves around your brain and don't ever let go. Flash-based E-card with songs and video. (edited by Arwon on 10-13-04 06:29 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 175/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I'm an Ipod boy. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 176/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| It's a sad indictment on modern television that the most compelling and insightful punditry is on Comedy Central. Funny though. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 177/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Depends how you define "threat" really. | |||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 178/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| John Stewart reports more with his silly voices and perplexed facial expressions than those other shows do in their entire half hour. (edited by Arwon on 10-22-04 03:22 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 179/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| "To the Editor: As a maternity social worker at a Catholic hospital, I work with low-to-middle-income mothers, mostly working, who are struggling with an unplanned pregnancy. Programs like Section 8 housing, food stamps and subsidized day care convince many of our moms that they can continue their pregnancies and still manage a decent life. The Bush administration has tried to weaken all of these, while calling itself pro-life. It argues that adoption is the answer for unwanted pregnancies. But when a poor mom sees her baby for the first time, she loves it no less than a wealthy mom. Why should these mothers be told that adoption is the only option, while well-to-do mothers can easily keep their babies? John Kerry is the true pro-life candidate. Affordable housing, day care and health insurance will prevent many more abortions than the punitive policies of the Bush administration. Eileen Sullivan Binghamton, N.Y., Oct. 12, 2004" Just a fun random letter to stir up the abortion thing. If I havent brought it up here before, I think it's worth considering the ramifications for the Supreme Court depending on who wins. EVEN IF THE CANDIDATES ARE AS BAD AS EACH OTHER THIS CAN BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. There's several justices nearing retirement or death, and that means the president will probably get to appoint new ones. bush would almost certainly appoint radical fundamentalist type judges as per his ideology - he'd be happy with the ten commandments in every school, and denying the right to not say the pledge of allegiance, etc etc etc. Kerry I'm not sure about, he's spoken about women's rights, the PATRIOT Act and stuff. I think as a Democrat we can safely assume his appointments would be a lot more benign and better for the country's direction (rememeber we're talking decades of influence here) than a "I want to overturn Roe vs Wade" type hardliner fundie appointed by the hard-right sector of the Republican Party. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 180/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| I'm not loading a 3 meg video. But. There was a plane that left the airport, it was full of people. Those people are all dead. A plane was seen flying low and towards the Pentagon. Then it hit the Pentagon. SNOPES TO THE RESCUE A plane hit the Pentagon just like two hit the world Trade Centre and one crashed in a field. That's the end of the story. (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 02:03 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 181/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Um, no, I've gotta call bullshit on that. People SAW planes hit these things. A coverup of this magnitude would have to have had so many people from all walks of life involved that it would be absurd and impossible. Police, fire brigades, military staff of all levels, news reporters, people in the streets of New York and Washington DC, airline staff, families and friends of all these groups, not to mention those of the dead. We're talking thousands upon thousands of people here. People don't work like that, they're not that disciplined or willfully nefarious in the numbers we are talking here. This isn't a bloody movie. To grant equality between conspiracy theories this loopy, and the fairly obvious accepted reality of the situation, is dishonest and perhaps even slightly insane. Sometimes bad things happen. Let's get some perspective here. Governments are bastards, full of petty ambitions, personality conflicts, factional brawling, greed, power-lust, and very often wilful indifference to the people they're supposed to be governing. They are not, however, evil plotting masterminds. Also, this really should be in our new politics forum. (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 09:47 AM) (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 09:48 AM) (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 09:56 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 182/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Dear America: PLEASE STOP MISUSING THE WORD "LIBERAL". IT DOES NOT MEAN "LEFTIST". hhallahh: Roe vs Wade is weirdly phrased but it seems pretty sensible. Aside from striking down blanket outlawing of abortion by any of the states, it takes a fairly sensible legal stance on the whole issue as far as I can see. The opinion points out that there's two competing and contradictory rights at play - the rights of the mother and the rights of the potential human life inside - that must be weighed against each other, and that at different stages of pregnancy the sensible balance between the two is different... so the states have different degrees of latitude in legislating on abortion at each different stage. Maybe it's not strictly borne from the US Constitution, but then the US Constitution was written a long time ago and there's A LOT of things on which it is silent - hence the call for seasoned and learned judges to interpret things like this. Also: the "right to privacy" precedent was apparently set in 1965 by a case about birth control (somebody versus Connecticut) that said birth control could not be regulated by the states because it was a private matter and protected under the constitution. So they didn't create it with RvW. "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Ammendment I read this as "Every right not dealt with by this document should be unfettered" ..meaning if a right is broadly seen to exist, then it does, and is protected. But then this is what I'm talking about - an old vague document inadequate by itself to forsee and cover every possible legal issue 200 years down the track. (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 11:45 AM) (edited by Arwon on 10-23-04 11:50 AM) |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 183/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Copied from the Roe vs Wade decision, I think: "State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165." Hmm, so actually it seems like the "right to privacy" is taken from both, some wierd nexus between the 9th and the 14th. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 184/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Read the Snopes article. There's photos. Photos containing wreckage. Snopes is in the business of debunking absurd conspiracy theories, and this it debunks thoroughly. Like I said, let's get some perspective. Govenrments lie and make shit up, but there's a huge difference between claiming non-existant weapons of mass destructionexist half-way around the world in a secretive regime... and covering up involvement in an explosion/crash in YOUR OWN MILITARY HEADQUARTERS in YOUR OWN CAPITAL CITY. What I don't get is why. Why do people believe there was a cover-up about the Pentagon crash? What would anyone have to gain? We know four planes were hijacked, we know they hit other places that day. What would the US government or whoeverthefuck else have to gain by twisting this around, or, as some people say, causing it? And that last paragraph? I'm not brainless and naive and I don't just take whatever the news says as truth, surely I've shown that much in my posts here... so please don't patronise me like that. "Anything can be faked" is a nice piece of relativist zen but it's just not really true. Yes, you can't know anytihng absolutely 100% for sure, but you can get so damn close that it doesn't matter. Jacques Derrida is dead, after all, and we pretty much know that for sure. (That was somewhat tongue in cheek, but he's an interesting example) What I'm saying is that there are different levels of "believability" and doubt and "fakability" ... and that a plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 is pretty much at the far end of that spectrum for any reasonable observer. There is no parallel between non-existant weapons of mass destruction and a non-existant Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. We're talking about probably the most public, the most covered and the most analysed event ever to occur on this planet. You simply CAN'T fake or cover up something of this magnitude. (edited by Arwon on 10-24-04 08:45 AM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - - Posts by Arwon |
