pwagen

The computer will boot to the third option, since the first two are not available. There, it will run whatever boot software is on the MBR (Master Boot Record). Nowadays, I think most Linux distributions come with a boot loader called GRUB (though that may vary), and the usual procedure if you're dual booting is to make it so you can choose what OS to start when the computer boots. Now, if you don't get a menu in the beginning, it's likely that the Windows partition was wiped when Linux was installed. To make sure, insert a Windows CD/DVD and reboot. If any remnants of Windows remain, the installation program should find it and be able to restore it (which removes GRUB so you can't start Linux without further tinkering). If it doesn't find anything, Windows is gone and will need to be reinstalled.

Exaggerated how? You mean those news stories weren't really that bad?

From my reading of it, almost. But it's actually a bit simpler than what you seem to think here. While the formula uses both sea level temperature and sea level pressure, both of these are the "standard" values (I'm guessing average or mean values). So both are constant, which makes DA vary only due to your current air pressure and temperature.

First and second laws of thermodynamics. http://www.wisegeek.org/why-is-perpetual-motion-considered-to-be-impossible.htm Also, if you want a power source, you wouldn't want to have to "wind it up" every now and again, would you?

Nor did I suggest we do. Not my logic. If you refer to my first post in this thread, you can probably guess my stance on it. Don't try to put words in my mouth just because I'm giving examples of an explanation from a certain point of view.

Good point, which is also written in plain sight in the Wikipedia article, had I bothered to look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc.C2.B2 This might be off-topic, but aside from gravity, in what situations does light "behave as if it has mass-like properties", as is written in this (admittedly short) answer to the question whether light weighs anything? http://sciencefocus.com/qa/does-light-weigh-anything

Tough question, really hard to find an answer to be a specific profession. It does seem that educating yourself in the architectural business is a start. Interests in art and history are helpful if you want to restore old buildings. But yeah, start by becoming an architect, and maybe you'll find out where to go during that process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_conservation

For some, it doesn't. http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg

You're absolutely right. That's why there is no debate. The scientific consensus is quite clear. And if there is a debate, it's not scientific in nature.

Common sense can get you quite far. So keep using it, and keep studying and asking questions! Physics isn't easy, and the Big Bang is mostly confusing, so you're doing a good job so far. If something was created out of nothing in the Big Bang, doesn't that mean the universe was empty before it happened? The problem is, time was created in the Big Bang as well, so there can't have been a "before the Big Bang". That's like saying there is something north of the North Pole. Do you see the problem with saying everything was created at the Big Bang? You can't have -1 of something material, like a book or a car. What you can have though, is for example a negative force. Let's say you're pushing something with the force of 1. Then you stop and start pulling it instead, with the same force. Compared to what you did at first, you're manipulating the something with the force of -1. The Big Bang wasn't a bang though! It's an expansion of space. The nickname Big Bang was first used to ridicule the theory, but then it got stuck. Light is made up of photons. And since we know photons move at the speed of light, we know they have to be massless, so they don't weigh anything. However, since light (which can also be seen as radiation) has energy, it can behave like as if it has mass, since mass and energy are two of the same according to Einstein's famous formula E=mc2.

I won't say it was dependent on it, an example seen by programmers bypassing BIOS to access the graphics hardware. But to my understanding, BIOS used to work as an interface between the operating system and the hardware. So even if it was possible to bypass, I don't know that is was actually done. So I guess the answer is yes, pretty much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INT_13H http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS_interrupt_call Not quite. BIOS has changed very very little over the years. And, since BIOS became the de facto standard, operating systems were written with BIOS in mind. The makers of the operating systems simply didn't include functionality that would require a "special version of BIOS" or anything like it. There was just one interface, and they had to deal with it.

Not really up to you who gets to reply on a public forum, now is it? http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/diarrhea/ Looking at those, it appears two of those can result in both bloody diarrhea and vomiting, which leaves the third one with symptoms that match, making it slightly more likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giardia_lamblia#Manifestation_of_infection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entamoeba_histolytica#Transmission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptosporidium#General_characteristics

I'm in agreement with this. If you allow that, you might as well allowa=999 and then perform any operation on a as you would the nines, since a isn't a digit.

Before this gets out of hand, I want you to know I'm not a biologist. So not only am I just finding this out as I'm reading up on it, I might be very very wrong. So take whatever I say for what it is! The Wikipedia article mentions a few causes, for example aging or environmental factors. Also, a trait might be due to more genes than what is currently known, which means that the genes known to effect a certain trait might not be enough to explain the differences. I don't know if that would be an example of variable expressivity, but that's how I understand the Wikipedia article and the links from it. As an example, take two identical twins. One grows up normally, the other one has an accident when he is a kid, involving a bunch of chemicals which makes him blind. But it also gives him the ability to "see" sound. The other twin is exposed to a radioactive experiment when he is an adult, which turns him green and muscular when he is upset. Both have the same genes, but they would have different traits. In my uneducated opinion, I would say no. The whole point of variable expressivity seems to be that the same genes can produce different traits. If the genes are different, that would be an example of genotype-phenotype correlation (the genes change, so the traits change), but not any kind of variable expression? And you seem to agree! Hopefully I'm not as wrong as I feel I might be.

I can't answer due to not being a paleontologist. But I can guess! As you say, it might not be 100% accurate. But it's also fiction, so you might have to let a few things slip for the sake of entertainment. But it's really the same with any movie involving any kind of science. Just look at Armageddon. It's a really cool, funny action "save the world" movie, really entertaining in most ways. But the "science" in it has spawned religions with the sole intent of making Michael Bay retire from the film industry (citation needed). So yeah, I'm sure even paleontologists can enjoy the JP movies as long as they acknowledge it's not a documentary.

It's not though, so it's falsified?

I don't have one of those, but it does sound like an interesting problem. If you have a smartphone, the simplest solution would probably be to get a data logging app for your smartphone, since you should be carrying yours with you everywhere you go. I found apps for the purpose for both iPhones and Android devices. I can't vouch for any of them though, so best thing would be to read their reviews and try them out. There are more technical solutions, probably, but it does seem you will need some kind of external storage for it either way.

I thought we were assuming there is a god for the sake of this question? If we can't assume there is a god, it's a pointless question and you're starting in the wrong end by assigning traits to something without even knowing it exists in the first place.

I think the classical answer is that he loves us but also gave us free will. And he can't retract that no matter how much we mess it up. Also, one can probably argue that a god and we have different definitions of "love". So letting us commit cruelties to one another serves to teach us some valuable lesson which we can have a use for in the afterlife, eloquently described in the short story "The Egg". http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

Well, there's a very logical solution to this, but I'm guessing your question assumes there is a God?

I didn't read through this, but the title suggests it's close to what you're looking for. https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFgQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.db-net.aueb.gr%2Findex.php%2Fcorporate%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F160%2F423%2Ffile%2FVVNH03_TKDE.pdf&ei=Ql5mUYuMHOPk4QTenYHICg&usg=AFQjCNFaEfIfHBMGyVDeIRBSSbWLle6h6g&sig2=xG9afZQ_3VTSwLowDDvnIA

I'm not 100% sure, since I'm not a Java pro, but I wonder if this actually works the way you intend: { // ...code... } while (entryChar != ' '); You might want to make that a do-while loop instead, otherwise I'm guessing that it only runs it once, then hangs on the while. do { // ...code... } while (entryChar != ' ');

Let us know how it works out!

You know, that would probably be a lot easier than to make whatever I had in mind. Occam's razor to the rescue!

Well, I have a somewhat decent idea, which I tried to draw. And failed. But the main principle is this: Get two containers, one smaller than the other. One has to fit inside the other without the walls touching. Also, the lid of the inner container should fit without touching the lid of the bigger one. Now, the idea is for there to be as little contact as possible between the two containers. So what you could do, is make small "bars" which will hold the inner container in place, while providing very little contact to the outside. I'm not quite sure how to explain this in a good way (and if it's homework or a project, I probably shouldn't), but have a look at this masterpiece and see if you understand what I mean. There are probably lots of other ways as well, but this is the first that came to mind.