On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:54:40 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/01/2026 5:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 04:13:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/01/2026 2:59 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 02:32:24 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 17/01/2026 11:44 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:55:14 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt
I suspected that the microplastics panic was mostly bogus. It didn't >>>>>>>> make sense.
I never bought into that BS, either. Plastics are constituted from >>>>>>> very stable and unreactive species of molecules, so what harm are they >>>>>>> going to do?
Plastics are constituted from all kinds of chemicals. Polyethylene and >>>>>> polypropylene are about as unreactive as they come, but they can still burn.
Teflon - polytetrafluoroethylene - won't even do that. Polyamide and >>>>>> polyurethanes are less innoccuous.
My food waste bags are made of a plastic that bugs can actually digest. >>>>>> In the late 1980's I knew a graduate student who was doing a Ph.D. on >>>>>> concocting that kind of plastic - her husband was writing software for >>>>>> the real time operating system that ran our electron beam tester.
John Larkin boasts that he skipped most of his chemistry lectures at >>>>>> Tulane, and I can believe it.
I didn't skip chem classes. I just thought they were boring.
If you don't understand what you are being taught, you can find it
boring. My parents both had university degrees in chemistry, so I did
understand what I was being taught, and went on to get a Ph.D. in
physical chemistry. I did develop an interest in electronics along the >>>> way, and found that even more interesting
I got A's. >
Or is it As?
I'd write "A's". I don't think it is any kind of possessive apostrophe - >>>> just a spacer. What your grades seem to mean is that Tulane didn't set >>>> very high standards.
First year chemistry isn't all that demanding.
Some public universities use Chem 101 as a washout course, to get rid
of the losers fast.
It tends to be required for pretty much every science degree. First year >>chemistry classes at Melbourne were huge. And there were lots of them >>running in parallel. Because I'd done my secondary education in Tasmania >>rather than Victoria, I got stuck in one of the classes with the people >>who hadn't done well in the Victorian secondary system. It didn't stop
me doing well in the first year exams.
It's not very demanding, nor very interesting. It's basically an IQ
test.
The virtue of an IQ test is that it doesn't take much preparation or
need much marking. Their vice is that they don't tell you much.
A proper chemistry course involves giving some thirty lectures spread
over a year, and as many practical classes, which have to be closely >>supervised.
There's quite a lot of content.
1st year chem was called "Betty Crocker Chemistry" because you only
had to follow recipes to get a passing grade.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 07:45:28 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:54:40 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>wrote:
On 18/01/2026 5:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 04:13:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 2:59 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 02:32:24 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 17/01/2026 11:44 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:55:14 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt
I suspected that the microplastics panic was mostly bogus. It didn't >>>>>>>>> make sense.
I never bought into that BS, either. Plastics are constituted from >>>>>>>> very stable and unreactive species of molecules, so what harm are they >>>>>>>> going to do?
Plastics are constituted from all kinds of chemicals. Polyethylene and >>>>>>> polypropylene are about as unreactive as they come, but they can still burn.
Teflon - polytetrafluoroethylene - won't even do that. Polyamide and >>>>>>> polyurethanes are less innoccuous.
My food waste bags are made of a plastic that bugs can actually digest. >>>>>>> In the late 1980's I knew a graduate student who was doing a Ph.D. on >>>>>>> concocting that kind of plastic - her husband was writing software for >>>>>>> the real time operating system that ran our electron beam tester. >>>>>>>
John Larkin boasts that he skipped most of his chemistry lectures at >>>>>>> Tulane, and I can believe it.
I didn't skip chem classes. I just thought they were boring.
If you don't understand what you are being taught, you can find it
boring. My parents both had university degrees in chemistry, so I did >>>>> understand what I was being taught, and went on to get a Ph.D. in
physical chemistry. I did develop an interest in electronics along the >>>>> way, and found that even more interesting
I got A's. >
Or is it As?
I'd write "A's". I don't think it is any kind of possessive apostrophe - >>>>> just a spacer. What your grades seem to mean is that Tulane didn't set >>>>> very high standards.
First year chemistry isn't all that demanding.
Some public universities use Chem 101 as a washout course, to get rid
of the losers fast.
It tends to be required for pretty much every science degree. First year >>>chemistry classes at Melbourne were huge. And there were lots of them >>>running in parallel. Because I'd done my secondary education in Tasmania >>>rather than Victoria, I got stuck in one of the classes with the people >>>who hadn't done well in the Victorian secondary system. It didn't stop >>>me doing well in the first year exams.
It's not very demanding, nor very interesting. It's basically an IQ
test.
The virtue of an IQ test is that it doesn't take much preparation or >>>need much marking. Their vice is that they don't tell you much.
A proper chemistry course involves giving some thirty lectures spread >>>over a year, and as many practical classes, which have to be closely >>>supervised.
There's quite a lot of content.
1st year chem was called "Betty Crocker Chemistry" because you only
had to follow recipes to get a passing grade.
Obviously you'll encounter the occasional old fool like Bill Sloman
who doesn't know that *practice* for IQ tests really yields dividends.
A mediocre student can gain a respectable score if he takes the time
and trouble to run through a book of such questions prior to taking
the test. Time is critical for points, and practicing enables one to
get much faster at answering these kind of questions.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 17:55:54 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 07:45:28 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:54:40 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>wrote:
On 18/01/2026 5:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 04:13:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 2:59 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 02:32:24 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 17/01/2026 11:44 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:55:14 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt
I suspected that the microplastics panic was mostly bogus. It didn't >>>>>>>>>> make sense.
I never bought into that BS, either. Plastics are constituted from >>>>>>>>> very stable and unreactive species of molecules, so what harm are they
going to do?
Plastics are constituted from all kinds of chemicals. Polyethylene and >>>>>>>> polypropylene are about as unreactive as they come, but they can still burn.
Teflon - polytetrafluoroethylene - won't even do that. Polyamide and >>>>>>>> polyurethanes are less innoccuous.
My food waste bags are made of a plastic that bugs can actually digest.
In the late 1980's I knew a graduate student who was doing a Ph.D. on >>>>>>>> concocting that kind of plastic - her husband was writing software for >>>>>>>> the real time operating system that ran our electron beam tester. >>>>>>>>
John Larkin boasts that he skipped most of his chemistry lectures at >>>>>>>> Tulane, and I can believe it.
I didn't skip chem classes. I just thought they were boring.
If you don't understand what you are being taught, you can find it >>>>>> boring. My parents both had university degrees in chemistry, so I did >>>>>> understand what I was being taught, and went on to get a Ph.D. in
physical chemistry. I did develop an interest in electronics along the >>>>>> way, and found that even more interesting
I got A's. >
Or is it As?
I'd write "A's". I don't think it is any kind of possessive apostrophe - >>>>>> just a spacer. What your grades seem to mean is that Tulane didn't set >>>>>> very high standards.
First year chemistry isn't all that demanding.
Some public universities use Chem 101 as a washout course, to get rid >>>>> of the losers fast.
It tends to be required for pretty much every science degree. First year >>>>chemistry classes at Melbourne were huge. And there were lots of them >>>>running in parallel. Because I'd done my secondary education in Tasmania >>>>rather than Victoria, I got stuck in one of the classes with the people >>>>who hadn't done well in the Victorian secondary system. It didn't stop >>>>me doing well in the first year exams.
It's not very demanding, nor very interesting. It's basically an IQ
test.
The virtue of an IQ test is that it doesn't take much preparation or >>>>need much marking. Their vice is that they don't tell you much.
A proper chemistry course involves giving some thirty lectures spread >>>>over a year, and as many practical classes, which have to be closely >>>>supervised.
There's quite a lot of content.
1st year chem was called "Betty Crocker Chemistry" because you only
had to follow recipes to get a passing grade.
Obviously you'll encounter the occasional old fool like Bill Sloman
who doesn't know that *practice* for IQ tests really yields dividends.
A mediocre student can gain a respectable score if he takes the time
and trouble to run through a book of such questions prior to taking
the test. Time is critical for points, and practicing enables one to
get much faster at answering these kind of questions.
I took the SATs four times, and last time I left early (pissed off the
other kids) and scored 800 on the math and 720 on verbal.
One recognizes patterns in the questions.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:54:40 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/01/2026 5:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 04:13:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/01/2026 2:59 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 02:32:24 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
On 17/01/2026 11:44 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:55:14 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt
I suspected that the microplastics panic was mostly bogus. It didn't >>>>>>>> make sense.
I never bought into that BS, either. Plastics are constituted from >>>>>>> very stable and unreactive species of molecules, so what harm are they >>>>>>> going to do?
Plastics are constituted from all kinds of chemicals. Polyethylene and >>>>>> polypropylene are about as unreactive as they come, but they can still burn.
Teflon - polytetrafluoroethylene - won't even do that. Polyamide and >>>>>> polyurethanes are less innoccuous.
My food waste bags are made of a plastic that bugs can actually digest. >>>>>> In the late 1980's I knew a graduate student who was doing a Ph.D. on >>>>>> concocting that kind of plastic - her husband was writing software for >>>>>> the real time operating system that ran our electron beam tester.
John Larkin boasts that he skipped most of his chemistry lectures at >>>>>> Tulane, and I can believe it.
I didn't skip chem classes. I just thought they were boring.
If you don't understand what you are being taught, you can find it
boring. My parents both had university degrees in chemistry, so I did
understand what I was being taught, and went on to get a Ph.D. in
physical chemistry. I did develop an interest in electronics along the >>>> way, and found that even more interesting
I got A's. >
Or is it As?
I'd write "A's". I don't think it is any kind of possessive apostrophe - >>>> just a spacer. What your grades seem to mean is that Tulane didn't set >>>> very high standards.
First year chemistry isn't all that demanding.
Some public universities use Chem 101 as a washout course, to get rid
of the losers fast.
It tends to be required for pretty much every science degree. First year
chemistry classes at Melbourne were huge. And there were lots of them
running in parallel. Because I'd done my secondary education in Tasmania
rather than Victoria, I got stuck in one of the classes with the people
who hadn't done well in the Victorian secondary system. It didn't stop
me doing well in the first year exams.
It's not very demanding, nor very interesting. It's basically an IQ
test.
The virtue of an IQ test is that it doesn't take much preparation or
need much marking. Their vice is that they don't tell you much.
A proper chemistry course involves giving some thirty lectures spread
over a year, and as many practical classes, which have to be closely
supervised.
There's quite a lot of content.
1st year chem was called "Betty Crocker Chemistry" because you only
had to follow recipes to get a passing grade.
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 07:45:28 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:54:40 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 18/01/2026 5:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 04:13:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 2:59 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 02:32:24 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>> wrote:
On 17/01/2026 11:44 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 08:55:14 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microplastics-human-body-doubt
I suspected that the microplastics panic was mostly bogus. It didn't >>>>>>>>> make sense.
I never bought into that BS, either. Plastics are constituted from >>>>>>>> very stable and unreactive species of molecules, so what harm are they >>>>>>>> going to do?
Plastics are constituted from all kinds of chemicals. Polyethylene and >>>>>>> polypropylene are about as unreactive as they come, but they can still burn.
Teflon - polytetrafluoroethylene - won't even do that. Polyamide and >>>>>>> polyurethanes are less innoccuous.
My food waste bags are made of a plastic that bugs can actually digest. >>>>>>> In the late 1980's I knew a graduate student who was doing a Ph.D. on >>>>>>> concocting that kind of plastic - her husband was writing software for >>>>>>> the real time operating system that ran our electron beam tester. >>>>>>>
John Larkin boasts that he skipped most of his chemistry lectures at >>>>>>> Tulane, and I can believe it.
I didn't skip chem classes. I just thought they were boring.
If you don't understand what you are being taught, you can find it
boring. My parents both had university degrees in chemistry, so I did >>>>> understand what I was being taught, and went on to get a Ph.D. in
physical chemistry. I did develop an interest in electronics along the >>>>> way, and found that even more interesting
I got A's. >
Or is it As?
I'd write "A's". I don't think it is any kind of possessive apostrophe - >>>>> just a spacer. What your grades seem to mean is that Tulane didn't set >>>>> very high standards.
First year chemistry isn't all that demanding.
Some public universities use Chem 101 as a washout course, to get rid
of the losers fast.
It tends to be required for pretty much every science degree. First year >>> chemistry classes at Melbourne were huge. And there were lots of them
running in parallel. Because I'd done my secondary education in Tasmania >>> rather than Victoria, I got stuck in one of the classes with the people
who hadn't done well in the Victorian secondary system. It didn't stop
me doing well in the first year exams.
It's not very demanding, nor very interesting. It's basically an IQ
test.
The virtue of an IQ test is that it doesn't take much preparation or
need much marking. Their vice is that they don't tell you much.
A proper chemistry course involves giving some thirty lectures spread
over a year, and as many practical classes, which have to be closely
supervised.
There's quite a lot of content.
1st year chem was called "Betty Crocker Chemistry" because you only
had to follow recipes to get a passing grade.
Obviously you'll encounter the occasional old fool like Bill Sloman
who doesn't know that *practice* for IQ tests really yields dividends.
A mediocre student can gain a respectable score if he takes the time
and trouble to run through a book of such questions prior to taking
the test. Time is critical for points, and practicing enables one to
get much faster at answering these kind of questions.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 24:14:09 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 368 |
| D/L today: |
560 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,913 |
| Posted today: | 26 |