StringJunky

Yes indeed. In the US there is a serious lack of separation and mutual critical oversight between the judicial and political pillars. You've got religion messing it up as well. We have another oversight mechanism in the Royal Assent, of which, the Queen's team scrutinises any laws before receiving it.

This is 7 years old, but this article on the appointment of a UK Supreme Court judge illustrates the glaring difference in attitude of the respective national judiciaries. Note how the appointee is warning of the politicisation of the UK judiciary: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/nov/08/supreme-court-appointee-judges-politicised

I can't say I've ever thought a high-ranking UK judge showed any overt political-bias in a case but it's rampant in the US and actually accepted, with Supreme Court judges chosen for it. Is this a wise way to pursue justice? Should not lawmakers and judges be distinct, whereby the former make the laws and the latter ensure they are lawful and consistent with existing statutes, and not just to ensure those laws pass because they are "on their side"? I personally think the US system of choosing judges is rank. That's my opinion.

Either don't worry about it or sling it, it's Google, it wants to know everything about you and where you go and so do all their "trusted" affiliate companies that have apps in it. It's the apps you want to look at, not the background services, which are part of the apps.

Never mind.

Where there's a clear demand, by repeated questions on a subject, they would likely create a forum for something.

So, it will light in an oxygen-free atmosphere will it?

Indeed. They would be an accelerant and a half.

If the charcoal has an inbuilt oxygen supply, then it also has an inbuilt flammable ability and in a sealed container could be very dangerous.

Yes. It deactivates some bacteria and viruses by denaturing their outer membrane. I always have it around because it''s the most smear-free cleaner.

We don't know everything.

The Boots chemist in my city is still developing film and photographs along with the digital printing and the prices have only risen with inflation. One of the technicians said they are still pretty busy developing stuff. But, yes, he's a dick.

That's peanuts for an exercise like that.

Have a look at this wiki and check out the references lower down in it as well; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review

LOL! It's surprisingly more difficult to specify the precise question than I thought it would be. Yeah, Ovation is no more and will only become collectible. Can't you get a new nut made. Easy job for a luthier or guitar tech.

Right. Cheers.

My question is: is more energy - a shock wave - transferred to the guitar from it being inside a heavier weight than a lighter weight? Everything else being equal.

Ok. Cheers. What you say makes sense. So, would you say the extra weight is superfluous? Say, comparing a Hiscox Pro to a Calton. The latter are very heavy apparently and about $1000.

The point of focus is the weight of the shell and how it transfers the impact to the contents. The cases shells can be assumed to be unbreakable. What you suggest is the received wisdom. The poster was wondering how physicists would see the scenario and I thought I'd ask here. Basically, is it worth carrying an extra 14 pounds or does actually cause a worse outcome? The cases will fall at the same velocity but the heavier cases has more momentum, doesn't it?

This has been asked on a guitar forum. Scenario: Two cases, one is substantially heavier than the other in that the shell is much thicker. The fit for the guitars is close all around and the interior material and structure is identical. Dropped from some arbitrary height with an acoustic guitar inside, which would protect the guitar from shock the best? The difference between the two is the weight; Let's say one is double the weight of the other. Also, would a snug fit protect better than having a little space around the guitar, so that it can move a bit?

Yes, it does make sense that we might be evolved to prefer cold over warm for that reason. We would have looked for running water over still water and the former is cooler, more aerated and safer bug-wise.

As is your prerogative.

A bit more anthropomorphism needed to be programmed into AI, I think.

Whether it was bankrolled or not, the desire was there for a referendum and that's the point I'm trying to make.... Russia didn't change anything. It was going to happen and PM David Cameron made it happen. Cameron was Conservative. See my response above.

Russia has nothing to do with the Brexit result. That's been gradually happening for decades. As far as regime change goes, I think that it is current wisdom is that it's not a good idea; change must occur from within. Iraq and Libya are sobering lessons