ewmon

You really don't have any ideas? Question 4 says: What is the minimum amount ... So, what kind of "amount" are we talking about here? In terms of money ($532)? In terms of items (532 paper clips)? In terms of text (532 words)? In terms of weight (532 kg)? In terms of volume (532 gallons)? If you "really don't have any idea", then you will have a horrible time in engineering.

Could we sum all those attributes up in a word such as: vitality (mental or physical vigor; energy), vigor (active physical or mental force or strength; vitality), or vital force (a basic force or principle regarded as the source and cause of life in living organisms)? Also worthy of mention: vitalism (the doctrine that the life in living organisms is caused and sustained by a vital force that is distinct from all physical and chemical forces and that life is, in part, self-determining and self-evolving). It does seem to come from nowhere. Women and children also seem to have varying degrees of it. It could be anything from genetics, to (im)proper diet, to mental attitude / spiritual life learned from parents, etc.

Definitely try building your own switches using ball bearings -- NOT mercury. Come up with a design and run it by us for our review. The switch shown in the link should work just fine. Use two of them. Hint: one for each motor lead. Best wishes.

No worries on the terminology. Notice the verb "trim" is defined as "to balance ...". One method of trimming fore-and-aft uses fore and aft ballast tanks with piping in between and a pump driven by a motor driven by a tilt switch. There are mercury tilt switches (potentially dangerous) and ball-bearing tilt switches (safer). The tilt switch should be a double pole double throw (DPDT) with a dead spot (that is, if the ship has neutral fore-and-aft trim, then don't pump water in either direction). If that's not available, you can use two simpler switches. Basically, the switches/sensors will run the motor/pump in one direction when tilted one way, and run them in the other direction when tilted the other way, and won't run them at all if in the middle. Or you can build your own tilt switches (I like this idea).

trim v. to balance (a ship) by ballasting, shifting cargo, etc. trim n. the position of a ship in the water in relation to the horizontal, esp. a fore-and-aft horizontal axis.

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni (2002) Business author Patrick Lencioni reveals the five dysfunctions that go to the very heart of why teams — even the best ones — often struggle. He outlines a powerful model and actionable steps that can be used to overcome these common hurdles and build a cohesive, effective team.

Sarahenry, these two numbers (13 and 17) are also primes, and so finding the answer mathematically is easier than if they weren't primes. This problem sounds like homework, when leads me to expect that you'll encounter similar but more complicated problems next. For example, Event A recurs every 6 years and Event B recurs every 8 years, or Event A recurs every 3 years and Event B recurs every 9 years. These problems involve finding and using common factors.

No, these things ...

I'm no SDS PAGE expert, but the 33 bands looks more like the 88 kDa species of BSA, and the 21 band is more like ~190 kDa but I have no idea what it could be.

Yet, by current definitions, there must be a point where the offspring are reproductively incompatible with all previous generations.

Okay, "flood control channel" sounds close to what I'm thinking, so I'll give it a ½ or even ¾ of a . Are there common, vernacular expressions for them? GOOGLE HITS -- NAME 2,200 K -- flood control channel 370 K -- flood channel 102 K -- flood canal 43 K -- flood control canal 25 K -- flood control ditch 10 K – storm ditch 7 K – storm canal Okay, at 80% of the hits, "flood control channel" receives top honors . Unfortunately, none of these names as well as "drainage ditch" (too far afield, literally) and "storm channel" (too ambiguous, sounds like the TV station to turn to for weather forecasts) seems exactly what I was thinking of, except for "flood canal" and "storm canal" (which add up to a lousy 4%). I would say that one of these is what I was thinking of. Apparently, my recall isn't what it used to be. (Please call our 800 number for customer service. Thank you, and have a nice day.) Thanks Spyman and hypervalent_iodine.

Employers have never asked/known anything about their employee's healthcare situations despite providing them with their healthcare insurance plans, so why start asking questions now, and why this question in particular? Why do people need to use contraception? Contraceptives in general prevent pregnancies. Condoms prevent transferring STDs. The pill corrects irregular menstruation (I knew a women who underwent this treatment in 1935!). The pill offers relief from painful menstruation. The pill helps with other non-STD diseases (PCOS, PMDD, endometriosis, etc).

I think we should differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution (aka speciation). Microevolution is the "peppered moth" scenario ... natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. Cause-and-effects mechanisms have been observed and proven. This is how easy it is to understand microevolution. American anthropologist Carleton Coon led a dig in North Africa in the first half of the 20th Century, where they hired rural, uneducated laborers to do the actual digging. One day during a rest break, Coon (with a translator) decided to try to explain natural selection to these men, which was the reason for their dig. The men didn't understand, and there was murmuring among them. Then, one man in the back who had remained attentive and silent spoke up. He said, for people living in caves, the tall ones would bump their heads and maybe die, but not the short ones, so short people survive in caves. Out on the plains, the tall people can reach the fruit on the trees, but the short people have a harder time harvesting the fruit, so the taller people survive on the plains. Coon was astonished that such an uneducated man could grasp the concept so quickly and articulate it so well. Macroevolution/speciation is the divergence into species. The mechanisms have not been observed or proven. The time scales are huge. Not one instance of speciation has been observed (except, apparently, for that one instance of bacterial cell lines maintained in laboratories over 20 or 30 years). Let's say, for example, that by whatever means, speciation occurs -- what should be two individuals (male and female) of one species are actually of a new species. One mating pair is the lowest amount of genetic diversity, which scientists claim either dooms their species to extinction due to lack of genetic diversity, or is the glorious start of a new species. Both views cannot be true, and in fact, they point in opposite directions. Take the human/ape split. I don't doubt that it happened (somehow), but as far as I'm concerned, the mechanism is mostly unknown. Chimps, our closest ape relatives, have 24 chromosome pairs; humans have 23. Human chromosome pair #2 seems to be two ape chromosome pairs fused together. So, evolution currently claims that: both a male and a female human mutant must have been born and healthy, they must have been born close enough in time and space to be a mating pair, they must have been fertile, and they somehow had enough genetic diversity to survive. To get a statistical grasp of the chance of this happening, let's look at the formation in modern times of a [new] species of "über-humans". With all the genetic testing that we've done so far, how many people have been found to have 22 chromosome pairs, where two human chromosome pairs have fused to form one über-human chromosome pair? I don't know of any. Then two über-human mutants must be born in close physical proximity (even a hundred miles might be too far away for them to "find each other"). And temporal proximity (a female born 40 years earlier than the male means she's left her child-bearing years by the time he's mature enough to mate). And they must both be fertile, which is questionable. And after all these things, there must somehow be enough genetic diversity in the pair for the new species to not only survive, but to thrive. To summarize, I accept microevolution, but to me, the mechanisms of macroevolution are mostly unproven -- at least the way evolutionists now claim it happens. I don't doubt that speciation occurred/occurs, but there's lots of unknowns that makes the current "theory" questionable.

I'm trying to write a letter and I need the name of those concrete structures, apparently mostly in cities, that act like canals to channel excessive water caused by storms; otherwise they are dry. In the movies, kids ride their bikes in them or car chases end up in them, both of which are probably illegal in real life. This is embarrassing ... any help out there? I know what will happen. As soon as I read the name that someone supplies, I'll recognize it immediately. Thanks!

The proof of the proof. A small yet outspoken portion of society seems to think that the proof of science simply come from saying it. I blame our school science textbooks that often read along the lines of: "In 1905, Einstein discovered the theory of relativity and derived the equation E=mc² for which he received the Nobel Prize." In fact, it took many years of discovering before his work came to fruition in 1905, and it took many years of studying, experimentation and discussion before his work was validated, with the prize finally granted in 1921. Schools think they can teach science without teaching the history of science (that is, a couple of case histories of discoveries and inventions). If people only knew the intensity of scientific research that has transpired and continues to transpire, we'd see almost no controversy about the moon landing hoax, Tesla's hushed up futuristic technology, 200 mpg carburetors, stolen alien technology, etc. In 1978, science historian James Burke presented the documentary television series Connections that did a pretty good job of showing just how much time and research goes into discoveries.

You're thinking of playing with fire. What part of "dead" don't you understand? You need to follow directions. source Although propranolol is mostly used for circulatory system disorders and migraine headaches, it also reduces anxiety. Most people have no problem going back to their doctor about physical problems, such as migraines, but balk at going back about psychological problems, such as anxiety. I suspect that your goal is to provide quick relief from anxiety. I've worked with this sort of thing. You need to take a long, hard look at what's called ADME -- Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion -- because what you propose can, and probably will, overwhelm every one of these stages of how your body manages a chemical. When you start violating the verified formulation of medications, you enter into serious, unknown territory where even pharmaceutical companies don't go. When you start doing this, the characteristics of ADME can change dramatically and unexpectedly. What might seem to work okay, can backfire on you for obscure reasons that even the experts could not have foreseen, and you end up in intensive care or the morgue. The only answer is this -- go back to the doctor that issued you the prescription, and openly and honestly discuss the problem you want addressed.

The answer is not so simple. Power requirements involve the area of the "disk" that is swept by the lifting rotor (called the "swept disk"). The smaller the area, the higher the power requirement; and the larger the area, the lower the power requirement (due to something called "disk loading"). It's why the Harrier is such a gas guzzler when performing like a helicopter, and the Osprey is more economical. It's also why have such huge rotors to lift one human, whereas using a (where the jet engine compressor/turbine is the "rotor") requires lots of power. There's also something called "ground effect" as well as other factors. If you google helicopter aerodynamics or something like helicopter power requirements, you'll find lots of good introductory and advanced material.

It does seem like a free ride for the publishers. Maybe if they had to buy the articles and pay the reviewers (in the same way that they pay printers to produce the journals), similar to the old-fashioned putting-out system of production. Perhaps if the publisher did not buy the "article" from the author, then they shouldn't own it. Authors shouldn't simply give their rights away. Maybe there should be more journals published by academic institutions, or professional non-profits (like the IEEE, the ASME, etc), which probably charge less.

I see Israel's nuclear status as a reason why no one would really try to wipe it out, if Israel intends mutually assured destruction. Besides, Israel could simply threaten to target Mecca, which would have a serious dampening effect on all of its neighboring Muslim states. Plus, would Muslims want to destroy Jerusalem, one of their holy cities? Israel could hold the Muslim's Dome of the Rock shrine in Jerusalem as hostage, but the Jews themselves consider the Temple Mount (called the "Noble Sanctuary" by Muslims, on which the shrine rests) as their holy ground, same as the Muslims, so that's pretty much out of the question.

I also agree that superstitions work this way for both situations: for one's own performance and for someone else's performance. I think mere thoughts can also have similar effects on someone else's performance. For example, if enough people wished that someone would put a bullet in a particular, unnamed president's head, and even if most of them never voiced their opinion (although they might not speak up against it if someone else voices it -- which is almost the same as voicing it), then that "psychological pressure" might overwhelm the decency threshold of a weak-willed person who then goes ahead and does such a thing.

With slight modifications → Why can't the Big Bang happen more than once? Supporters of the Big Bang are necessarily saying that the Big Bang had never happened before and can never happen again, yet without proof. And if it had never happened before and can never happen again (ie, for all eternity), how did it happen just that once for all eternity? The eternal uniqueness of the Big Bang, without proof, places it too close to Creationism. This problem does not exist with the Big Bounce ... it has happened before, it will happen again, it always has, and it always will.

I voted yes because there's nothing wrong or unethical about eating meat. What is unethical is the domestication of humans to the extent where they almost never come face-to-face with nature, equate animals with humans, think predators such as bears and lions are "cute", breed canines into ridiculous unnatural and useless shapes and sizes to be lap dogs and apartment dogs, and think only cops and criminals have guns. I assume "cow" here mean beef cattle and not the mature female of dairy cattle or of certain wild mammals, such as the buffalo, elephant, moose, whale, etc.

It looks a lot longer written on a sheet of paper. Your help is highly appreciated. ¹ http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-02

In controlling blade pitch, the blades won't spin faster than the pitch allows, so it could control the turbine speed. You'd want be able to feather the blades and lock the turbine drive shaft if you want to work on various equipment. If you can rotate the blades to a negative pitch, it can bring the drive shaft to a halt with aerodynamic braking alone. Depending on the generation equipment, it might work in reverse as a motor, and a motor might be useful for checking bearings or alignment, bringing a blade into position for maintenance, etc.

Do you mean an asset like an attack dog in a distant part of the world who does our dirty work (like assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists) and who also allows America to play the "good cop" to Israel's "bad cop", hopefully persuading errant states such as Iran to conform to our views?