I am a chemical engineer by education, if not by practice. There are several reasons why catalysts are degraded despite not being consumed in reaction.

The issue is that catalysts are typically formed into fine, spherical pellets to maximize the surface area of catalytic material exposed. This is because catalytic reactions are characterized by an intermediate reaction between the reactants and active sites on the catalyst. As a result of their being made into pellets, a variety of things can occur that reduce the active surface area. As a result of temperature and pressure, the pellets may adhere to form larger particles, which will hence have lower surface area. Additionally, chemical entities present in the reactor may physically adhere to the pellets creating a diffusive barrier to the catalyst. The catalyst can probably be recycled after its effective lifetime, but the cost is certainly not zero (probably similar to production costs in ore refining).

Additionally, although catalysts are not consumed <b>in the reaction they catalyze</b>, they may take part in reactions other than the one of interest. In this way, catalytic material may degrade over time, although platinum is fairly inert.

Somehow, I think if they owned manors, they would have little or no need to be doing any kind of work.

Considering that they can kill 100 million people at a time with a single push of a button (and limitless ammo too), yeah, I'm pretty sure they can.

Yeah, that'll do you a great deal of good when they decide to just shoot you first. Of course, all the morons going around gung-ho about their guns completely forget that, if they have guns, then almost certainly criminals will more more and better guns, seeing as they're an essential part of their "business".

Or were you imagining killing some poor unprepared guy walking down the street who really couldn't care less about your deranged mental situation?

But is it worth more than your life? The first thing all these "GONNA GET MAH GUNZ!!11!1!!eleven!" guys forget is that swinging around a gun is a great way to get shot in the back. Especially since the average looter will probably be an impoverished black guy with significant experience in killing people on the street.

Hi everybody, I can post an entirely fictional nerdgasm fantasy rant too!

In reality, all that would happen is that the next day, said bully would come back, shoot you in the head as you walked down the hall, piss on your dead body, have a nice, cold beer, and get away with a stint in juvenile until 18 because of his "history of being bullied in school" (way to go, dipshit).

Sorry to bust up your dreams, but they'll just start by firing nerve gas through your windows. Then they'll snipe your dog. You can't win, don't try to be the tough guy.

People don't choose where to live; they're born where they live. Even to the extent that people move, perhaps once in their lifetime, they almost certainly don't do it based on the availability of Internet access. You could just as easily ask why rural locations ought have sanitation, electrification, or any other utility. The great thing about society is that we as a people believe there are certain things which everybody should be able to enjoy, even if it requires a transfer of wealth to accomplish it. Whether or not you think Internet service is one of these is up to you, but don't try pretend that the only fair way resources can be distributed is every man for himself.

The finding is controversial because it has been commonly known that arsenic esters (R-AsO3) are rapidly hydrolyzed in water. For example, the main cause of arsenic poisoning is its replacement of phosphorus in adenosine triphosphate (ATP), followed by the quick decomposition of the arsenated compound, preventing cells from performing metabolism. The NASA paper claims that the bacteria have somehow found a way to create stable arsenic compounds despite the fact that cells are highly aqueous environments. I don't believe anybody is disputing that the bacteria can grow in the presence of arsenic. Rather, the controversial claim is that arsenic is replacing phosphorus. For example, an alternative explanation would be that the bacteria possess very effective mechanisms to pump arsenic out of the cell, similar to how halophiles are capable of removing large quantities of salt ions.

On another note, I don't think it's fair to be attacking NASA about this, though their decision to hold a press conference appears politically motivated (i.e. a grab for money/attention). Their space program is consistently underfunded, and they've been deploying robotic missions as much as usual.

As for whether the paper's claims regarding the incorporation of arsenic into molecules stands up, that will have to ultimately be confirmed by independent experiments. It's not like the bacteria are some kind of state secret, so it's premature to call anything "under fire" at the moment.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about biochemistry, I'm just another IT guy.

So the only races that exist are white and black? Indeed, I wonder who the racist here is.

Actually, concerning capital punishment in the U.K., I find it curious that the members of Parliament can give lengthy speeches on the inequity of the death penalty, and indeed to call for European and British intervention globally, when public opinion appears to be in favor of the penalty. I took a brief look at "Bring Back the Death Sentence" on the suggestions website, and the majority of comments indicate either complete or conditional support for the death penalty.

There, fixed that for you. In addition, I would suggest that we broadcast it over all the public media, so everybody can confirm the success of the execution, lest you escape justice.

Maybe they should stop doing things that make them deserve getting shot in the head?