ewmon

Apart from the actual breeding itself, the possibility of such offspring would raise serious legal and moral/ethical concerns (again, not "moral" in the religious sense). Why would anyone want a extremely strong, hairy, half-wild half-breed human? If we wanted half breeds, we should be breeding "up" — space aliens, celestial creatures (such as "angels"), etc. What rights would they have? Human rights, animal rights, a mixture of the two, or something totally new? What purpose would they serve, except to prove that it could be done? Certainly it would be unethical to use them to work in environments dangerous to humans or for menial labor that would be "beneath" humans. Aren't our mental institutions full of individuals that cannot be integrated into mainstream society? They would probably need to be kept in an institution — maybe part lab, part hospital and part zoo. Civilization is leaning away from such environments for animals, so we certainly wouldn't want to do this to half humans. Would such individuals have a soul? Not religiously, but in the same sense that human cloning is banned, that the cloned person might not have a unique individuality unto him/herself. What would we do with individuals who aren't really human or are so "unnaturally" created? What parental rights would the chimp parent have toward the offspring? Think about it. Strange.

I developed an Excel spreadsheet to generate random schedules for people, but that was random delivery routes involving several constraints. A driver might go to clients A, B, C and D one day and go to clients A, B, E, F and G the next day, but it was all within the same shift and took approximately the same amount of time (one of the constraints). From a human perspective, your employees would love you, the company and their work more if you could: Assign them to a shift on a weekly basis, so they can schedule their personal life around their work. You are scheduling people to work about half the days in a month, and who would want to get stuck working D_N_D_N_D_N_... or don't have two days off in a row (a "weekend") just because a computer generated a random schedule that's supposedly "fair"? People have families, hire babysitters, share duties, etc. The employee or his/her spouse might share picking up the kids at school/daycare, etc — so it makes life easier if everyone knows that it's their turn or their spouse's turn to do something on a weekly basis rather than a daily basis. Then you could develop the schedules 4 or 5 weeks at a time. Add constraints about day/night balance per employee, at least on a monthly basis, and perhaps throughout their employment. You probably don't want employees complaining to you that they've been stuck with a lot of night shifts for the last few months, while other people have received a lot of day shifts. Some people are especially sensitive about Friday and Saturday nights. You don't want the perception of favoritism among employees (even though it's actually random) because that'll bring down company morale and productivity fast. Add constraints about consecutive days. It's not nice if someone must work 10 or 15 days at a stretch (even though they might end up with several consecutive days off at other parts of the month). This includes a constraint about consecutive days among consecutive months. Which reminds me, the no Night-then-Day constraint must be satisfied among consecutive months so no one works the night shift on the last day of one month and the day shift on the first day of the next month.

Yes, and where I come from, it's actually illegal, and my dinner companion ,who is on a restricted, was politely informed that she wasn't allowed to eat her little cup of store-bought yogurt for dessert.

Information required to determine the accuracy of the given Bohr diagram for tungsten: What is a Bohr diagram? How do you draw one? What would a tungsten Bohr diagram look like? So I searched for the definition of the Bohr diagram. The first result defines the Bohr diagram. The second result instructs on drawing one. You then determine what a tungsten Bohr diagram would look like.

If this is homework help, it belongs in the Homework forum. To answer your question: It doesn't.

F = ma v = Σa The object's weight is the force of gravity, which is a function of the object's mass and gravity (W = mg), and the resulting acceleration of the object is a = F/m, or here it's W/m, which gives you the original g. Thus, the object's mass gives it its force due to gravitational acceleration, yet this force acting on the same mass results in the original gravitational acceleration. The object's mass, used in both calculations, effectively cancel each other, which is what they've been trying to tell you here. ... and when you put these two hammers together, they drop at the same acceleration and reach the same velocity as they did separately. Why would connecting objects make them fall faster? Why don't we see it happening in simple experiments? Why aren't these people falling five times faster than they do separately?

I think you're slightly off track. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Statistical mechanics reads: So there you have it. Stock markets are systems composed of a large number of stocks, and you're interested in developing mathematical tools that use probability theory in order to study the dynamic behavior of these systems.

What a minute. That won't work unless you know the size of Jupiter. Who determined the size of Jupiter and when? Besides, as imatfaal said, from Wikipedia on Jupiter: And go easy on yourself. Your comparing yourself to the crème de la crème in the world of science.

Johannes Kepler had published his three empirical laws of planetary motion at least fifty years earlier.

You can begin with educational documents like this one written by the NASDAQ, and head toward material on the statistical mechanics of stock markets.

Eternal happiness has always been and will always be the universal and ultimate quest. But how do we achieve it? That's why I thought you had long exposure to the conservative/KJV kind of mentality — Don't even think of looking for happiness in this life here on earth; you'll only find it afterwards in heaven. Let's look at the serenity prayer from a non-religious perspective: In other words, make as much happiness where and when you can, forget about making happiness where and when you can't, and learn to distinguish between such situations. Is it a free-for-all? Every man for himself? Your happiness is okay with me as long as it doesn't interfere with my happiness? People can get into some pretty freaky stuff. Is it all okay? How long/hard do we try to make happiness in a situation? When do we stop? When do we give up? How do we balance happiness with duties, responsibilities, obligations, etc? And what do we do with the garbage constantly flowing into our lives. We bring it on ourselves, others do also — and let's not forget nature? Ignore it? Forget about it? How? When the boss chews me out at work, do I go home and kick the dog, or take it out on the wife and kids? If not, where does my unhappiness go? It's as real as anything else. It exists. So where does it go? Where do I send it? When my baby is born seriously disabled, do I give it up for adoption, put it in a state hospital, or can I kill it?

Ditto. Without changing water pressure, there would need to be a way to "atomize" the water (maybe fluid oscillators as with modern windshield washer nozzles) into tiny droplets that fly in various directions. In doing this, it exposes more water surface to the air causing it to transfer more of its heat to the air, instead of going down the drain, and so it'll act like steam and heat the shower area without so much wet.

Five minutes because excessive washing somehow causes me itching/pimples, and showering for hours sends lots of expensive hot water down the drain. Why not soak in a tub of hot water?

Yes, apparently with designing the propeller as one of the Wright Brothers' most puzzling problems. Propellers that worked well on their workbench behaved much differently in flight. The dynamics would change as the airplane began moving through the air. They eventually realized that a propeller was basically a wing, and that twisted blades gave enough thrust to propel their airplane.

A story about a revolt? Surely you mean Anarchaeolgy = Anarchy + Archaeology (in red because it's about Mars).

But it complicates your pursuit of what to believe and what you can question. Here you are asking us. You situation may be similar to the situation for pastor's kids. They can find it difficult to openly question their faith within their church because they're the pastor's kids. They feel pressured to conform. Wow, if any kids in a church "get it", it must be the pastor's kids. What do you mean the pastor's kids are a rambunctious and unbelieving lot? What's going on here, what kind of pastor is he anyway that his own kids don't believe? If you want to live a Christian life, which you seem to want to do, I think there's a church/denomination out there for you. You mention "happiness", so, offhand, I'm thinking Congregationalist. They're not strong on doctrine, but are more people-oriented. They typically have great kid/teen/young adult programs. To me, they're at the very liberal end of churches — country clubs with crosses on top. And then there's lots of denominations in between. I suggest that you do some "church shopping", make contact with another local church, explain your situation, and begin talking with someone there. If they are Christian, they will respect you (and not go over your head to your father). I have seen time and time again, that each generation's faith is generational. In the 1980s, Oldsmobile attempted to freshen its image by advertising that "This is not your father's Oldsmobile." The same is often true with Christianity — different perspective on the basic Christian theme. More emphasis on some parts, less emphasis on others. Shop around. I think the Bible version a church uses can indicate their Christian perspective. I wonder if your father uses the KJV, used by many conservative/fundamentalist/fire-and-brimstone Christians. If you're coming to us instead of your father, he seems unapproachable on such topics. Such Christians tend to focus on God's punishments instead of His love. It's a Christian perspective that's not popular among young Christians (or even middle-aged Christians), and it seems to be going out of style (unless you live in the Bible Belt).

Christians believe that it's accepting Christ as your lord and savior that gets you into heaven. That's why the deathbed penitent goes to heaven. If you refuse to believe in God, then that seals it. Christians believe that you can't really live a Christian life without accepting Christ as your lord and savior.

They get to share some of each other's research, which might reduce duplication of effort/time/resources, but also get some insight of their competitors' research, and some ideas for other drugs for other diseases, etc. If they are actually donating out of their own coffers, they all know that each of them is taking a similar hit. For example, in the auto industry, it's not like only General Motors donating cars, but that it's also Ford, Chrysler, Honda, etc, etc. These companies might be receiving some foreign aid money, but then it wouldn't be donations. Also, something that may not be well known, American foreign aid is money granted by the US government to foreign countries for use only in turning around and buying American products and services. And that's taxpayer money.

Here's a recent news article on this. I'll be the first to accuse myself of being cynical, but when I read something like this: Am I really supposed to believe that any company will incur a voluntary out-of-pocket expense? Do these companies get shareholder approval for such donations? Do they turn around to their shareholders and tell them, sorry, profits will be down slightly for the next decade while we engage in this donation program over in Africa? Do they tell employees that raises will be slightly less over the next ten years due to their give-away program? Or do they increase the costs of their products to be paid by insurance companies and patients? So, who's really doing the "giving" here, and is it "voluntary"? Big Pharma is joining forces with governments, so there's taxpayers' money right there. And I can't see but Big Pharma (company, shareholders, or employees) will not incur any loss due to their "donation" program, so that leaves their paying customers to foot the bill. Have I made a lot of sense here, or am I being too critical?

Let's begin with the basics. It's "98.5 MHz" (FM in North America), or something like "1080 kHz" (AM in North America). M = Mega = million (always capital "M") k = kilo = thousand (always small "k") Hz = Hertz = cycles/second (always capital "H" and small "z") The unit "Hertz" means "cycles/second", named in honor of the 19-century German physicist Heinrich Hertz, who was the first to demonstrate the existence of electromagnetic waves. It's a nice way of having a simple, one-syllable unit name instead of one that's five syllables long ("cycles per second"). A cycle is a change in amplitude from zero to maximum positive, back to zero, then to maximum negative, and then back to zero. Think of your bike pedal beginning halfway up the up-stroke, and its motion during one cycle of the pedal's crank. The frequency of a radio broadcast refers to the "carrier frequency", so called because it "carries" the information meant to be broadcasted. Note — The radio term "broadcast" is borrowed from farming, where it means to sow seeds broadly over a large area — basically in every direction, compared to, for example, planting them in rows or in starter pots. In radio, broadcasting is meant to be received anyone, whereas microwave dishes might sent its signals along a beam, like a headlight or laser, meant to be received by only one other dish in the appropriate position and orientation to receive the signals. This is why broadcast antennas are drawn with radio waves emitting in all directions, and dish antennas are drawn with radio waves emitting in a beam. The term "AM" means "amplitude modulation", which means that the sound/information to be transmitted is encoded in the radio frequency by modulating the amplitude of the carrier frequency. You've held a balloon while speaking at it, so you know that sounds cause objects to vibrate, pushing and pulling at things. Imagine speaking at a disk in a can of carbon powder. When your speech pushes against the disk, it compresses the powder and makes it conduct electricity more. When your speech pulls back on the disk, it relaxes the powder and makes it conduct electricity less. This was how the microphone part of Thomas Edison's telephone worked. Now send your radio frequency electricity through the carbon powder and to an antenna. Your voice will modulate the electric signal's strength (amplitude) which then emits from the antenna as a radio signal, and you have just sent a radio broadcast in amplitude modulation. To "demodulate" amplitude modulation radio frequencies, first you convert it from radio waves into electrical waves — this is what the antenna part of your radio does. Metal does this easily; for example, your bike and the metal clip on your pen are constantly receiving all sorts of radio frequencies. Then you want to pass along only that carrier frequency (and a small range of frequencies around it), and reject all the others — this is what the tuner part of your radio does. Then you want to allow only the "voice" frequencies (about 30 Hz to 10,000 Hz) in the signal through and reject the radio frequency in the signal — this is what the detector part of your radio does. This last electrical signal goes into your speakers which transforms it into sound. While your digesting this, I'll think of a way to easily explain FM modulation and demodulation.

Sea water has a density of 1.025 g/cm, so applying a force if 1.025 g for every cm² of sea surface will raise the water 1 cm, and the work performed is 1.025 g × 1 cm for every cm² of surface raised. Physics is not one of my main strengths; am I right?

Keep in mind that 230VAC is a derived rms "voltage" computed from the peak-to-peak voltage Vrms = √½∙Vp-p so, Vp-p would be 230/√½ or 325VAC. Also, 230VAC being a single-phase value, the two-phase value would be √3 times more, which is 398VAC. Perhaps the two-phase was/is the standard. If it's 400.00VAC, then the one-phase is 400/√3, or 230.94VAC.

Yet are they not the compact forms by which DNA exists in living matter?

Great response. I think societies (whether religious or secular) made marriages "official" mostly for the stability/strength/success it offered societies due to "the family" and its success being a very important element to most societies. For example, many people are surprised that, although alienation of affection has been abolished in most states, jilted spouses can still sue interlopers for it in Hawaii, Illinois, North Carolina, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Utah as this recent high-visibility case and this other one shows. Although my legal knowledge is appreciable, it is also limited. Maybe my view of marriage was incomplete, and so, maybe marital breaches are tortious as well as contractual. The term "tortious" refers to a civil wrong called a "tort", which, quoting Wikipedia above, is A common example of a tort (although unrelated to marriage) is trespassing. People do not contract one another not to trespass on each other's properties, and most people do not explicitly assert exclusive rights to their property by posting "No Trespassing" signs, yet people generally understand that it is "wrong" to go onto another person's property without permission — aside from the limited access of walking up someone's sidewalk or driveway for the purpose of talking to them and/or giving or leaving something for them, etc. So, a marriage may also be society's unwritten recognition of the parties' exclusive rights to the fidelity/faithfulness/allegiance, companionship/emotional support, physical/financial support, kindness/mercy/compassion, etc that are due one another in such a relationship. Certainly now, with no-fault divorces, the courts really don't care why one person no longer wants to remain married to their spouse. Entering into marriage, at least in secular society, there's no minimum legal obligations for marriage other than simply agreeing to enter into the marriage, so the ultimate evolution of grounds for divorce to include "no fault" really shouldn't surprise anyone. And likewise, when there's no legal obligations for marriage, then same-sex marriage really shouldn't surprise anyone either. To further illustrate the difference between a tortious wrong and a contractual wrong, a Christian lawyer (yes they do exist) once enlightened me as to the slight difference (unnoticed by most Christians) between the two translations of the Our Father prayer, where one tells us to forgive our debtors and the other says tells us to forgive those who trespass against us. Our debtors are parties to explicit contracts with us (either written or oral), whom we should then forgive if they fail to comply with the terms of the contract. On the other hand, someone who trespasses has not made any explicit promise as to his behavior, yet has violated a generally understood obligation to his fellow citizens, for which we should forgive him. So, technically speaking, forgiving those who trespass against us forgives a wider and inclusive range of sins compared to forgiving our debtors.