zapatos

!seY That way you cover everything from Z(apatos) to A(rea54).

Go over everything in reverse order.

Thought experiment proves that fire engines are red: 1+3=4 4x3=12 12 inches is the length of a ruler A great ruler is Queen Elizabeth The RMS Queen Elizabeth sailed the seas Seas have fishes Fishes have fins The Finns fought the Russians The Russians are Red And therefore fire engines are red, because they are always rushing.

I'd like to say goodbye now in case I'm not here when you are shown the door.

At least do a tiny bit of research before calling someone a liar. https://www.petco.com/shop/en/petcostore/product/tarantula

Thanks, now I understand. I think I'm a bit sensitive nowadays with all the nastiness in politics. 😳

Perhaps you are correct. It wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood someone. But when someone wants to talk about an issue that affected someone, and the response is to immediately turn that around and suggest the affected person may be the cause of what happened to them, it sounds to me like victim blaming. "I was raped." -- "What were you wearing?" "I was robbed." -- "Why were you out so late at night?" "I ran into barriers when trying to get into college." -- "Why didn't you try harder?" Those may be valid questions, but when you don't first try to understand the circumstances it feels like you are trying to deflect and blame the victim. It seems to me that one of the barriers to education is people not taking seriously the issue of barriers to education.

Aaaaarrrrggghhhhh!!!!! I though my previous post did a pretty good job of showing that just wanting it is not enough. The OP asked about what some of the barriers were to equal opportunity in education. You responded by suggesting lack of personal responsibility was the reason people could not get an education. You didn't once acknowledge there are indeed barriers to education in your first post. When I tried to point out some people do indeed run into barriers by giving an example I'm familiar with, you swung back around to 'it's there if you want it'. I don't mean to sound rude, but that is for another thread. This thread is about educational barriers that people encounter that are no fault of their own. You seem to be putting the blame on the victim. It is similar to trying to talk about police brutality against blacks and getting the response that black people deserve it for running, or trying to sell cigarettes illegally, or lots of other things.

True. Not true.

My wife started an internship at work where they would have a highly motivated girl of color in one of the inner city high schools get exposure to nursing for a summer. One of the girls selected wanted to pursue nursing after high school. She literally had no idea how to apply, where to apply, how to fill out applications, and could get no help from those in her family as they were just as clueless. My wife basically held her hand through the process. Then it turned out she needed remedial math and some other skills as the high schools didn't really make sure their kids were qualified to move on to the next grade in school. Schools in low income areas cannot afford tutors, resource teachers, computers or in some cases text books like they can in high income areas. My wife had little hope this girl would be successful. It is not that she was not motivated but that she was completely clueless as to how to go about doing it. She was never taught to study, never taught to deal with bureaucracy, buy school supplies, get around barriers to education, didn't know who to contact or what to say to them when she did. Why is it that when removing barriers to education is suggested, it is always the individual and their lack of personal responsibility that is at fault? What part does society play in this?

This Youtube video does a pretty good job of explaining what I could have been more clear on. You might like this.

From any given distance to a black hole the 'gravitational pull' does not change at all as a BH gets smaller. If our sun were to suddenly become a BH there would be no change to its gravitational pull on us. The gravity gets stronger when you move closer to a center of mass. Imagine the strength of gravity on the surface of the sun. That is the strongest you can feel the sun's gravity. But if the sun turned into a BH, you could get close to its center of mass since its 'surface' is now closer to its center of mass. THAT is where you would feel a stronger gravitational pull.

MigL also said "Once they 'eat' all close by mass via their accretion disc, they can't overcome farther out stable orbiting material, and stop growing." His point being that anything close enough to be readily consumed by the BH has already been consumed. Nothing else is close enough to be impacted by the extreme gravity found in the near vicinity of a BH.

First, the mods did not create this site; they are volunteers. Second, stop being so insulting to everyone. Third, if you don't care to contribute to meaningful discussions you know where the door is.

Only if they change the Constitution. Otherwise the Supreme Court decides the Constitutionality. In general I find SCOTUS to be apolitical. Just because a judge tends to vote 'liberal' or 'conservative' doesn't mean they are influenced by politics. They were appointed because they tended to hold the views preferred by who appointed them so we should expect them to tend to vote a certain way. It seems to me they are only 'political' if they allow politicians to influence their vote after they are appointed. I don't see that happening.

In the US abortion laws are generally State laws. In states the voters and politicians either do or do not support abortion and pass laws that represent that preference. Stacking the Supreme Court is a way to impose your views on the entire population and overrule the will of the people at the State level, by finding that some specific state laws violate the Constitution. Until Roe v. Wade the state laws were proper and not subject to interpretation.

LOL! I'm pretty sure there is no difference between "knowing with certainty" and "knowing for a fact". Just admit it and move on. No need to embarrass yourself by trying to hide what is obvious to everyone. "Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Never claim to "be certain" about anything. Only claim reasonable justification for belief, as it leaves you less embarrassed later, when evidence comes out that your claim of "certainty" was actually just you fooling yourself.

To whom will they sell fresh water and table salt? They are in the middle of the dessert. Transportation costs top populated areas would be substantial. In 2020, the state of Missouri (where I live) is expecting to pay $62 per ton of salt. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of salt in the world. Who is going to pay for the solar and wind infrastructure, as well as the transmission lines to ship the energy out of the desert? Earth is already colonized. Why do you want to do these things in the desert? Ocean water is available in lots of places that aren't so remote.

To do otherwise would be risky and a waste of time and resources. To rely on unknown medicines, aircraft, etc. is never a good idea. My question back to you is why would you depend on with full trust or confidence something which could kill you? re·ly /rəˈlī/ verb depend on with full trust or confidence.

Who is going to pay for all of this? Certainly not the subsistence farmers.

But it didn't so what's the point?

Don't you have anything better to do than annoy everyone?

No. Are there any parables in science books that try to teach people to be humble and look out for their fellow man? Of course not. Complaining that shoe factories don't follow the rules used in rugby matches is a waste of time.

Yes, it is much better to ask how it is possible (since it obviously is) than to suggest it cannot be due to your personal incredulity. Now you are on the road to being scientific.