ewmon

The idea of "experts" in forums is too top-down, authoritarian and slippery-slope-ish for me. Instead, I look to forums as a discussion among colleagues etc. I think it would also be too heavy to add an "Ask the Experts" sub-forum. A "forum" means an open assembly allowing discussions, and in Latin, it means "public square" or "marketplace". As to supporting our claims, we should provide either enough information to allow people to easily search, find and learn for themselves or provide links to a recognized authority. For example, recently in the Is race real? thread, I explicitly mentioned the term "ecogeographical rules" and gave a few examples of those rules. This easily allows people to find and read about these phenomena, to investigate further, and to decide for themselves.

I think some of the best empirical data to consider for your biracial × biracial "cross" involves Afro-Americans. From your supposition, we would expect to see at least a few Afro-American couples giving birth to ~100% African or ~100% European children, when in fact, we don't see such offspring. About 1 in 6 Americans is Afro-American, so we're talking 50 million Afro-Americans and tens of millions of Afro-American couples. And I'm pretty sure the reason is because most of the traits we consider "racial" don't combine as dominant/recessive traits, if my memory serves me correctly, so we're not going to see Mendelian genetics at work.

It all sounds like a matter of degree, and consistently so. As with dog breeds, I think races can be defined as constellations of genetic traits. However, what I think has happened over the years is that prejudices have broken down and people have married "outside of their races", resulting in a blurring of the previously clear lines. There was a name for this (miscegenation), that people hardly use anymore, if at all, thank goodness. In fact, not so long ago in America, there was some amount of prejudice within the Caucasian race itself about marrying within your own nationality. As for physical traits, I can mentally picture stereotypical subcategories within races. Consider the so-called Caucasians just within Europe. You've got the short, dark-haired/skinned/eyed Mediterraneans, the ruddy/freckly Irish, the tall, lightly-complexed, Scandanavians, the round-faced, blue-eyed Baltics, the burly, fuzzy-browed Slavs, etc. Have you not heard the expression that "he has the map of Ireland on his face"? Can you imagine Conan O'Brien trying to pass as an Italian or a Slav? Even a trait such as stature (height) is difficult to use as a single trait. Some people are tall/short due to the length of their limbs, others due to the length of their torso. This alone was not without its prejudice and insults. I can remember the review of an Italian sports car (Ferrari, I think) in a car magazine from the 1960s, in which the writer complained that it was the typical awkward Italian design on the inside: the pedals were too close and the wheel too far away, implying that Italians were stereotypically short-legged and long-armed (does a gorilla come to mind?). In fact, if you compare the short, darkly-complexed southern Europeans with the tall, lightly-complexed northern Europeans, you're also getting into what's called "ecogeographical rules", such as Gloger's Rule (on skin pigmentation), Bermann's rule (on body mass), and Allen's Rule (on appendage size). Tay Sachs is a genetic disorder (of varying types) that is more prevalent in some groups of people who, for a variety of reasons, tended to be isolated from their region's mainstream population -- and thus, the disorder appears "inbred" to some extent. Sickle cell anemia seems to be a beneficial mutation with regards to malaria. So, any people living long enough in malaria-prone regions could develop sickle cell anemia.

Which is why I remain anonymous.

Yes. Intensity is amplitude, and the [instantaneous] loudness is what modulates/controls it. You can actually buy kits with a light modulator/transmitter and a light demodulator/receiver. It all depends what you want to encode in the carrier wave. If you want to encode frequency, then be prepared to transmit multiple frequencies, and to receive and decode them. It seems prone to poor signal-to-noise (S/N) characteristics. Currently, frequency modulation uses the amplitude of the voice/music signal to modulate the carrier frequency. At any given moment, there's only one instantaneous amplitude of the voice/music signal, so the modulated carrier is only one instantaneous frequency.

Perhaps the thickening minimizes post-partum bleeding and blood loss when the placenta separates from the uterus at the end of the pregnancy. If my feeble mind remember correctly, most/all of the vascular disruption occurs on the mother's side of the attachment, and mothers can bleed to death. I've never heard of a placenta bleeding post-partum; I've never heard that the umbilicus must be quickly tied off and cut out of concern that the newborn could bleed to death through the placenta.

Refrain from caffeine after 12 noon. Engage in significant physical exertion during the day, but not near bedtime. Although alcohol is a depressant, your brain will stimulate itself to counteract it, and this can lead to lack of a restful night's sleep. Develop a healthy world view and a productive attitude toward resolving problems in order to minimize the "things" that are "on your mind".

To expand on what Externet said, the dimensions of the coil affect the dimensions of the magnet field it produces, and thus, its affect at a distance in a particular direction.

Maybe defense, but to me, obviously not against embryos. If human uteri achieved the targeted 100% success rate, we wouldn't be here right now. However → The embryo must penetrate deeply, which the uterus must allow, so I see the thick lining and its periodic sloughing as defense against non-human biological entities penetrating so deeply and compromising the woman's health. Perhaps the embryo requires a think lining that the mother's body cannot properly defend immunologically, so the sloughing of the lining (and anything hiding/growing in it) is an alternative method of defense. In a somewhat likeewise manner, the lining of the lungs, which similarly requires intimate contact with the air, has its method of flushing away undesired biological entities.

If by "osmotic environment" you mean that most of the water contained in honey interacts with the sugars, then yes, that's what makes honey hostile to most microbes — very little free water in which to thrive.

What I meant was: The link on polyatomic molecules was meant to show you that atoms often combine to form molecules that are not compounds. The link on alpha and beta particles was meant to show you that these particles are matter but are not composed of atoms.

Suspects Purposeful misdirection: Someone who signed into the dorm to see another person (and perhaps did), but also slipped this under your door. Think of a practical joker who has smiled at you. Delivery error: Someone who delivered it to the right location but the wrong floor. Make photocopy and post on dorm bulletin board as Lost & Found. Posting this Lost & Found might also be a way to receive more puzzles or messages (ie, another mystery note: "The message was for you, just follow the clues, and find something new."). Reason for quotation: Someone who thinks you lack imagination. Perhaps an art major (they're always at odds with scientists) trying to expand your horizons. If on purpose, I suspect a man more than a woman, especially a man with a romantic interest. (Use your imagination.)

Banks, did you find the two mistakes I indicated?

The three customers ended up paying $9 each, or $27 total -- $25 to the hotel and $2 to the bellboy. No mystery, no trick, just warped logic to see it any other way.

Here’s some information to help resolve some of your inconsistencies with reality in the T/F section not yet revealed here. It’s your job to discern to which of your questions they apply (yes, you still have two wrong answers, so you're scoring a 78 so far in the T/F section). If you can't discover your errors, then come back here and we'll work through it. Polyatomic molecules (see the answer). α and ß particles (see the first reply).

At first thought, this information would seem to edify/confirm the professionalism of this forum. At second thought, it might also have a dampening effect on discussions here ... once a highly-qualified moderator speaks, others may be less inclined to speak up, let alone disagree. As with government-appointed officials, we entrust their appointment to the chief executive, and I think it works well here. I find some of the most unqualified eyes have the most refreshing perspectives, and the speculations and questions that flow from those perspectives. Although an OP may quickly be found to be wrong or trivial, it can spark variants in people's minds that can lead to interesting discussions and elucidations that are otherwise unattainable. Having said that, what I can't stand (and refuse to read) are rambling, 5,000-word, cut-and-paste views of reality by newcomers (post doc, rank amateur etc, it doesn't matter). Sorry (not really ), but if you can't give us a one-screenful-or-less (<500-word) summary of your manifesto, then I'm not bothering to read it. I know plenty of others here will read it, but not me (and I don't think I'm alone on this).

What part is the rope with tiny fibers -- the "handle"? Could the tiny fibers be algae on an aquarium net handle? I'm not giving up. Well, despite your last post, most of the photo seems naturally made, while the handle and net seem artificially made. Although butterfly nets tend to have their net seams running from the handle around to the other side (as it does in the photo), they also tend to have thicker rims and deeper nets, so I don't think it's a butterfly net. In the photo, the handle attaches to a rim that's pretty much rectangular: orthogonal to the handle in the back, parallel to the sides, but the front is somewhat rounded. The perspective of the shot skews everything. The double seam of the net is obvious, and the fundus of the net (the "bottom" opposite the opening), if you allow me to use that word, is inverted into the opening. Anyone who'd played with aquarium nets knows how they can do this (and how very annoying it is). On the other hand, it does look like an image from the Lovecraft story The Dreaded Book of D'zami Ja. Notice any Cthulhu kind of things happening lately?

A spot on the glass membrane allows only protons through, which makes the sensing electrode ion-sensitive, and the protons enter the solution in the bulb until equilibrium occurs in the concentration of these ions across the membrane. To complete the circuit, the reference electrode is in a solution in contact with the (outside) test solution, and to avoid contamination, the electrode is designed for it to slowly leak into the test solution, but this junction is not ion sensitive. This sets up a kind of battery powered only by the ions to which the electrode has been made sensitive.

The handle from the left edge leads to a green aquarium net in the upper right. Next mystery photo.

This is an interesting question. There's a wide variety of chemical communications constantly occurring throughout your body that don't involve the central nervous system. Blood also clots as a local, autonomous reaction involving chemical "communications". If not, and a mosquito bit you while sleeping, you'd bleed to death. Otherwise, it would be like having to get White House approval for you to open a window on a hot day, or to buy more breakfast cereal because you just finished the last box. (Maybe in a communist country, but not a free society.)

Let's also not forget altitude sickness. At 150 miles, you would be walking on a slope of about 2°, and you will have attained an altitude of 15,000 feet, which is the maximum allowed in aircraft without pressurized oxygen. You could also suffer altitude sickness below that altitude. Fly to La Paz Bolivia and see for yourself. At 850 miles, you'd be walking at about 12°, and you'd be 90 miles in altitude where the low-orbit stuff "floats by" at 17,000 mph. Cool!

Yes, as they say, the ends does not justify the means. Calculus is not, for example, knowing the rules of differentiation of polynomials in one variable. It is, for example, knowing the foundations, implications and applications of the rules of differentiation of polynomials in one variable. That is, it's the integration (pun intended) of the algebra, geometry, trigonometry etc that lead to calculus. Years ago, Kim Ung-yong was a 4-year-old Korean boy who could perform calculus. Even with an alleged IQ of 210, it gave him the mind of a normal 8-year-old, but that's not old enough to understand the calculus in depth. So sure, I grant that he was a child prodigy, but his calculus skills seem like sophisticated parlor tricks to me.

It was the 17 minutes figure, and the difference in time was between the Earth on the "near side" of the Sun (ie, the same side as Jupiter) versus the "far side" of the Sun (ie, the opposite side from Jupiter). From Wikipedia, the semi-major axis of Earth's orbit is 149,600,000 km, and the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec, so the time for light to transit the radius of Earth's orbit is 149,600,00/300,00 seconds, or 499 seconds, or 8 min 19 secs. And the time for light to travel the diameter of the Earth's orbit is twice the time of the radius, or 16 m 38 s, or about 17 minutes. I didn't research Huygens claim stated above, but I think you meant 16 2/3 minutes for light to transit the diameter of Earth's orbit. The transit time of 16 2/3 minutes would be 16 m 40 s.

Shift fairness. The day/night fairness might be computed using ratios. If a day shift counts as a "1", and a night shift counts as a "2", then the average would be 1.5, with an allowable range of, say, 1.4 to 1.6. Or it might be computed as the difference between number of day shifts and night shifts for an employee, so that an employee is only allowed to work, at most, three more nights than days or three more days than nights. These ratios or differences might be calculated (and limited) for the entirety of their employment with you, so for example, an employee who is consistently assigned 3 more night shifts than day shifts per month (allowed by the algorithm) doesn't end up unfairly working 36 more nights than days in a 12-month period (although very improbable). There would be a yearly calculating/limiting whatever "shift fairness" figure-of-merit you choose to use. A weekly basis. I meant give someone all day shift or all night shift for the days they work in a week, so they can plan their whole week around that schedule (knowing they'll be working days or nights that week, instead of a crazy mix). You could plan for an entire month (or two, if you wanted), but in increments of weeks, so that's where I got the 4 to 5 weeks at a time comes from.

Unless the 98.5 FM station was transmitting an unmodulated carrier frequency, you're almost guaranteed that the signal is not 98.5 MHz (except when instantaneously passing through 98.5 MHz as it is modulated from less than 98.5 to greater than 98.5). Here's your FM transmitter and receiver. Take your carbon powder mike that you made for your AM radio, and include it in a circuit that uses its resistance to determine the frequency of the oscillator circuit. The circuit is designed to broadcast at 98.5 MHz with the designed value of the mike (no sound input), but as you speak into it, its resistance varies more or less than that value, which varies the oscillator's frequency, which then goes to the antenna as transmits as FM radio waves. In your receiver, you actually tune the tuner to 98.5 MHz, this being a "band-pass filter" that allows through frequencies that are the center frequency ± some set bandwidth. These frequencies then get sent to the detector that extracts the voice/music from the ~98.5 MHz signal. Now comes a detail about filters. Filters do not suddenly filter out all the energy at frequencies outside the allowable band. It may allow through 100% at 98.5, and 90% at 98.49 and 98.51, and 80% at 98.48 and 98.52, etc. So, there's a gradual filtering out as the frequency goes through the high and low "ends" of the pass band. That said, we'll now use a similar filter for the first part of the detector that allows through 0% at 98.495, 10% at 98.496, ... , 40% at 98.499, 50% at 98.500, 60% at 98.501, ... , 90% at 98.504, and 100% at 98.505. We are using this filter to make the signal's frequency modulate the amplitude. Aha. Now we have a signal coming out of the first part of the detector that is both frequency AND amplitude modulated. The second part of the detector treats it just like the AM detector does — it strips away the radio frequency part of the signal, leaving only the voice/music signal that's modulating its amplitude, which you send to the speakers. Disclaimer — Most likely, no radio transmitters or receivers sold today work exactly as I have described here. They are much more sophisticated. What I have given you is what an electrical engineer would make from basic electronics parts if shipwrecked on a deserted island (with Gilligan, the Skipper, and everyone else ).