entwined

For the volumn of a sphere, I have always used 4.188 (4/3 pi) times the radius cubed. Works for me..... Oops, sorry I didn't notice the part about it being only partially immersed in the liquid. This site seems to have it worked out.... http://www.monolithic.com/plan_design/calcs/

Solar panel arrays could be built in orbit large enough to produce all of our needs for power, but the problem is in developing a way to transmit that energy from orbit to the surface. Solve that problem and you have solved the energy problems for the world.

Why wouldn't it be?

I suppose it would be. Now, suppose the insurgent ties some TNT to himself and blows up a wedding party to make a political statement? Good kill?

I gather from the responses here that most feel that the sniper did what snipers do and was not guilty of any particularly heinous act. From the conversations that I have suffered through over breakfast of late, I was beginning to wonder if it was me who had his screwed on crooked or them. I haveto find a better place for breakfast......

I am not so sure about that. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to declare war, but it does not say that war cannot be conducted absent such a formal declaration. The following quote is PART of an article that can be accessed be the provided link. It seems to support the idea that war is war, whether congress bothers with the declaration of same or not....... http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html Edited to add.... This link lists all the times that congress actually declared war and also the times that congress merely gave the nod to conduct war without a formal declaration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Military_engagements_authorized_by_Congress

In general, yes, that seems to be their answer to the problem. Also, "take it to the UNSC." As if the UN could impose some sort of "economic sanctions" on the terrorists.

This article tells of a very long shot made by a US sniper in Iraq. What do you think of the use of snipers in war? I have talked to some who call this murder..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/01/wirq01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/01/ixnewstop.html

So far I have not seen anything in the way of a definition, only evidence that we perceive it to exist.

I see what you mean if you are looking at the shaded diagram rather that the hand drawn one. I cannot see how to solve this if the opposite angle is not 90 degrees.

it looks to me like if it were a 90 degree angle, that side X would be the sine of a 21 degree angle (.3584) times the length of the hypotenuse (325.345) or 116.603. That is, carried out to 3 places. No?

If you are talking about random mixing of the cards and what the odds are against the deck comming out exactly as packed, then the formule is 52x51x50x49 etc. Look at it this way: Suppose you had 5 cards- an ace, a duce, a trey, a four and a five. Now you mix them up and turn one over. The odds are 1:5 that the turned over card is the ace. If the card turned over is the ace, then the odds are 1:4 that the next card would be the duce, so one could expect on an average that the ace would have to come up first 4 times before it was followed by the duce. That means that there would be 5x4 (20) mixings on average before the first two cards were ace-duce in that order. when the first two cards are the ace-duce in that order, then the odds are 1:3 that the next card will be the trey therefore the mixing will, on an average have to occure 5x4x3 (60) times to get the cards to come up ace duce trey in that order. In order to get the 4 to come up on scedual, a 1:2 shot, it will take an average of 5x4x3x2 (120 mixings). and then, of course the only card left is the 5 which is a 1:1 shot, so the total mixing for the 5 cards is 120 mixings, which just happens to be the product of 5x4x3x2x1. See how that works?

What is important about the assessment of the Justice Department regarding presidential powers during times of war are the precidents cited therin. Your link does not work, try this one...http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm It seems that 64% feel that what Bush is doing is fine and dandy. And since you refer to the "preponderence of evidence showing that he cares less about terrorism" than increasing the power of his office, (something that he is quite incapable of doing on his own) perhaps you would be good ebough to share some of this evidence? Remember now, I asked for evidence, not opinion.

The Constitution says that congress shall have the power to declare war "To declare War' date=' grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[/i'];" but it does not say that congress must declare war for a state of war to exist. Therefore when congress granted the president the power to: "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. " And : "(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" As they did on Sept14 2001, then the president is aithorized - by congress - to use all the powers that a president has in a time of war. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html

You are probably right about that. I realized that that was a weak argument when I wrote it for just the reasons that you cite. There is another element however' date=' that I do think would be a significent cost escellator and that is the case of the super health consious (especially parents) who, knowing that it is all free, will parlay a bumped knee on little sally into a medical bill that could amount to thousands of dollars where under the personal coverage plan, with deductible, it would have been a bandaid and a watchful eye for a couple of days. Reagan once said "if you make being poor profitable, soon you are going to find that you have a lot of poor people." In a sense, the same thing applies to socialized medical care. There are a lot of people who have nothing better to do that sit in a doctor's office--indeed, many who actually [i']like[/i] to sit in a doctor's office.

This is the problem that I have also. In any health care system you are going to have to confront the cost issue sooner or later. In a private system, one confronts the costs either out of pocket, or through insurance (which is also out of pocket) but in either case it is in his personal financial self interest to do what he can to reduce health costs. In the socialized medicine system, one's personal life style choices do not affect his financial well being, at least in terms of health care costs. It seems to me that people will be less concerned about things like smoking and drinking and diet/exercise if they are able to rest assured that their health care costs are going to be paid by someone else. Therefore, there is the question of government control of our private lives. If the government is paying all of our medical costs, is not the government then entitled to make decisions about our life style habits that might reduce the cost to society as a whole? Would anyone argue that we could not cut the cost of health care in half simply by disallowing people from smoking, drinking, eating too much high fat foods (think McDonalds) and even coffee, and additionally require all people in the system to get some measure of aerobic exercise each day? Personally I do not want the government to make those decisions for me, but others might be willing to give up personal control of their lives for the security of socialized medicine. As an old man in a whore house once said, "you pays your money, and you takes your choice"...........

Just a question, not to start an argument, but if the speed of light is indeed constant to an observer, then what is this red shift and blue shift that we keep hearing about?