JoeSF35

Douglas, Thanks for the link but I have found several sites like that which show the "75 million" number, but not one gives any data. I guess I have to proceed to write a short paper on why not. I have found a few which show the data for the 20 million Chinese deaths. Class is in 2 hours so I guess I'll find out what he says then.

I don't know where else to post this but here so, I am taking a history class because I need more social science credits to graduate. My professor was talking about the death toll and said that most of the internet data you find puts it at 55 million for WW2 and 10 million for China. He then went on to say that the actual death toll was more like 75 million with 20 million for China, and asked if we could find this data and if not why? I have been searching all day and have found a few sites that say this but no numbers other than "75 million". Does anybody know where I can look, or do you have any info on the results he claims?

Ya, now that I think about it. He is saying our smart bombs aren't smart, and those words aren't smart, etc..... Either way they hate us.

Or did I not get it?

I know there is a thing called free expression, but it still says something when one of their political cartoons says "smart words - crush America and wipe Israel off the face of the earth". I can't link it but you can just go to the site http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage and it is on the bottom of the page (Cartoons the one about samrt bomb-smart words). Am I wrong in thinking that this is the epitome of hatred through words? Once they get a nuke it will be "delivered" to Israel and then Israel will drop their nukes and then...........

They are made of plastic, and the flooding did not reach the receptacles. I havn't had any electrical problems since I got my power back, so I guess it was just moisture. Still seems odd though. Ceramic covers it is then.

I came home today and all of my receptacle cover plates were curled up. Is this a moisture problem or an excessive current problem? We just went through a hurricane and it knocked a hole in the roof and could have screwed with some other things. Any ideas on how to prevent this, or what's causing it?

Could an EMP be used to disable the detonation device of a nuclear missile? Or are simple pressure sensors all that is needed for detonation?

Thank You much. I will have to scale this idea down though.

Remember that the angle and the shape of the individual blocks in the arcs of old were such that every member was in compression and held together with much friction. Because the concrete and cement were very weak in tension. In a dome there will be tension in the lower portion. Here is a good pdf with some mechanics and statics formulas http://www.bath.ac.uk/~absdfda/DayalaIIIsemfinal.PDF

<How bumpy do you mind it being?> It can be as bumpy as necessary, as long as it is getting up stairs. <Would it be defeating the purpose to make a kind of customised track like used for stairlifts?> Yes, I was thinking of this though. I also thought of a bot that could carry its own "ramp" with it. And then place this ramp before each stair, but this seems like a long unnecessary process. My 3 wheel design is starting to seem far to complicated too. It was going to be 2 sets of 3 wheels rotating on the front axle and 2 wheels on the back axle, a smooth track in between......) I like the packbot idea. I had gotten similar ideas from watching tanks climb hills on The History Channel, but I wasn't sure if it would work for stairs (90deg). Could I generalize the thread? I would think stairs that are made of different materials might not be "compatible" for climbing via friction or lifting with the thread.

What is an energy efficient method for a robot to climbs stairs? I have ideas for a three wheel design (ripped off from Hannibal). And another design that uses a hydraulic or pneumatic lift (but these seem like a waste of energy). Any ideas? Thank You

I believe you can use their derivatives. d/dx(arcsin(x)) = 1/sqrt(1-x^2) d/dx(arctan(x)) = 1/1+x^2 There sould be a table in your book for the others. From this you can verify that arcsin is only defined and continuous for -1=<x<=1, (testing limits). I am pretty sure this is along the line of being correct.