DJBruce

I would like to live in a society where there was no injustice, where there is no death or diseases, where there is only peace, and where I can play in the gum drop forest. A side from the completely impossible perfect utopia that many dream of I am fairly content with the current form of the American Government. I would prefer to return to a slightly more limited federal republic, which was not is involved. I would also like to see a reduction in the governmental deficit. Overall I like the shape of the federal republic laid out by The Framers of The Constitution.

The concentration of the solute in the solution has the chance to effect the boiling point. This is called boiling point elevation, and is caused by the fact that normally adding a solute lowers the vapor pressure of the solvent. Since the vapor pressure of the solution is lower it must be heated more in order to reach equilibrium with the vapor pressure of the surroundings. The equation that governs this elevation is: [math] \Delta T_{B}=K_{b}m_{sol}i[/math] Where [math] \Delta T[/math] is the change in boiling point. [math] K_{B}[/math] is the boiling point constant. [math] m_{sol}[/math] is the molality of th solute. [math] i[/math] is the Van't Hoff Factor.

Was the guy saying that the interior of the square counted as a region because if so you have to do some rearranging of mine. However, it is possible.

Here is my solution I believe it works. Also although the four color theorem proof was controversial, I believe that it is fairly accepted in the mathematical community.

I would be very hesitant to have this procedure performed on my potential children. So the procedure makes my children more productive and more intelligent, but everyone deserves rest sometime. Regardless whether it is biologically needed sleep provides people with a break from their life, and everyone needs one.

Currently I am reading Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, A Divine Comedy: Inferno by Dante Alighieri, Excursions in Number Theory by Stanley Ogilvy. After I finish one of these I will probably move on the The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli or The Gettysburg Gospel: The Lincoln Speech That Nobody Knows by Gabor Boritt. By the way can anyone suggest any other number theory books?

You could use the boiling point elevation equation although it would not relate to the time it would take the liquid to boil. You could calculate perform the lab to show the equation is correct. [math] \Delta T_{B}=(k_{B})(m_{s})i[/math]

Remember the rules thenewb people are not suppose to completely do the problem for others. You can help guide people, but are not suppose to do it for them.

I am not really sure about when a person is most productive in mathematics. However, if you ever want to win a Fields Medal you better be productive before you are forty.

You can also prove this limit using the squeeze theorem. Here is which shows the proof fairly nicely.

It would also help if you could try to use LaTex as it is much easier to read. Especially when there are a lot of different equations being used.

It looks like the moon rocket mission was a sauces. The NASA team was not only able to gather the necessary data, but also they say they found large quantities of water on the moon. The moon rocket supposedly displaced roughly 2 gallons of water. National Geographic Here are the news from Popular Mechanics and from NASA themselves.

There is a large misconception about the Interstate Commerce Clause. The product being regulated does not directly have to be sold across state lines. According to the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Fillburn, "The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce." So if there is any way in which the intrastate sale of any narcotic or controlled substance effects a interstate market it can constitutionally be regulated. So for example if the intrastate sale of marijuana effects the interstate market of Doritos or pipes then it could be registered. The legality of the Controlled Substance Act is bolstered even more by the fact that it is common knowledge that illegal substances are often sold across state lines. As shown by the Supreme Court's majority opinion, "One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance." Although the Supreme Court's view of the Interstate Commerce Clause has changed over time the above view is still prevalent in court opinions. For example the court sited Wickard v. Fillburn heavily in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich which revolved around the use of medical marijuana and the Controlled Substance Act. The majority opinion the Court along with the plaintiff found that the Controlled Substance Act raised not Constitutional question. I have no doubt that there is more Judaical precedents and writings which explain the constitutionality of the issue. However, I think that this shows the Supreme Court, at least in the last one hundred years or so, has backed uses of the Interstate Commerce Clause similar to the Controlled Substance Act.

If you are still confused you may want to approach your teacher about it. They might be able to help you understand it, and or demonstrate these ideas to you. Sorry I could not of of more use.

Try converting decameters to litres then ember the definition of a litre. This should make this problem easier. To do the conversion this way all you need to know is how many litres are in a decaliter, and what a litre is defined is. To find the definition of litre is one of my posts above.

Who ever wrote that paper lost all credibility when the suggested the bird was from the future. I also find it somewhat weird that they keep referencing God in their explanation. Instead of math and other scholarly papers.

Hmmm....trying to tell us something? Allow me to rephrase, They have no penis, or penis shaped appendage.

A litre is defined as a cubic decimeter. This is because at the 1964 Conférence générale des poids et mesures, GCPM, the agreed to define the litre as an alternative definition for a cubic decimeter. A cubic decimeter is 10cm long, 10cm wide, and 10cm high. To find the volume of such a container we do length times width times hieght. [math] v=lwh [/math] [math] v=(10cm)(10cm)(10cm)=1000 cm^3 [/math] So a litre is defined as 1000 cubic centimeters. In a litre there are 1000 mL, as the prefix milli means one one-thousandth. So the reason that a milliliter equals a cubic centimeter is because of the definition of litre and the definition of the SI prefix milli. I hope this makes sense.

I won't give you what I consider the answer to be, however I would suggest you research what causes some of the properties listed, as well as if all the options are correct. If you explained what you where thinking people would probably be more willing to help guide you, because as the rules say no one will answer your homework for you.

The definition of a litre is one cubic decimeter. A cubic decimeter is a cube that is 10 cm by 10 cm by 10 cm, so there are 100 cubic centimeters in a litre. Thus: [math] 1000 cm^3 = 1 L = 1000 mL [/math] [math] 1 cm^3 = .001 L = 1 mL [/math] Knowing this the conversion you should realize that any measurement in mL is the same in cubic centimeters.

I am not sure why your method did not work. However whenever I have done this problem I have used Law of Sines to find the hypotenuse of the near triangle and then solved it from their.

It really doesn't matter all that much. It is more important to understand the trends and properties of the periodic tables and the groups.

Centripetal force is somewhat different than linear force. However, the equation to calculate it is the same. The equation to calculate linear and centripetal force is: [math] F=ma[/math] The acceleration for both linear and circular motion is still: [math]a=\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta t}[/math] However, in uniform circular motion the acceleration is able to be calculated from the equation: [math]a=\frac{v^2}{r}[/math]

Here are two different sites that show the derivation for the equation of centripetal acceleration. I find it hard to explain this proof without a diagram or I would do it myself, so I hope this helps.