Re:The New York Times Told Me To Take This Down
by pygy_ on Tuesday May 21, 2013 @07:45PM
(#5747866)
> Completely OT, but when the hell did the asterisk-asterisk denoter for italics become multi-line?
I'd say since forever. I don't remember it working differently, and I've been around for some time now (old account: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pygy)
Re:The New York Times Told Me To Take This Down
by EGreg on Tuesday May 21, 2013 @08:46PM
(#5748081)
This is pretty crazy - I've been on here almost as much as you!
Re:The New York Times Told Me To Take This Down
by geuis on Tuesday May 21, 2013 @07:39PM
(#5747843)
Thanks Sara. Glad I checked back in time to catch that.
Re:The New York Times Told Me To Take This Down
by jholman on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @12:54AM
(#5748956)
Pro internet tip: use the name people have given you. In this case, either the username "saraid216", or the name given in the person's profile.
And now that I've started on this topic, I'll also note that people make a lot of wrong guesses about gender, too.
Re:The New York Times Told Me To Take This Down
by uvdiv on Wednesday May 22, 2013 @02:55AM
(#5749282)
To answer your question in the dead thread about the cold fusion scam: Ni-64 (n,g) Ni-65 (e-,) Cu-65 is physical, and Cu-65 has a greater binding energy than Ni-64:
http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=28&n=36
(look at Δ(MeV), the mass excess)
The binding energy per nucleon is lower, as the other guy points out, but that's the wrong metric because Cu-65 has one more nucleon. The free neutron coming in has zero binding energy.
geuis: you should be able to fix it by adding spaces around the first asterisk, if you're so moved.