CaptainPanic

! Moderator Note The thread has been reviewed and will remain closed.

Yes, many of the sciences are connected. Luckily, for example, if you study chemistry, you will most certainly learn maths and physics too. At my university, we even had courses in presentation skills, and even some basic ethics and entrepreneurship (learning how to write a business case). Also, later in your career, if you go into the science/engineering/medical field you will probably work in a multi-disciplinary team, together with people who have all the other necessary skills. (This may not be the case in accounting, but I am not sure about that). When you evaluate the chance of getting a job with your future diploma, make sure to also take into account how many other people are doing the same job. Sometimes it helps to make a list, and then create some criteria (fondness of the topic, job security, possible income, etc). Then you should rank the different majors. You can even attach a different weight to the criteria. If the result of that process feels good, then keep it. If it feels wrong, then you know which major you do not want to take, and you should probably re-evaluate the criteria and the ranking. (Yes, in such a process it is easy to lie to yourself). In the end, this is indeed a big choice, but the only one who can make it is you. Do not ask other people what they would choose. Ask people for useful information so you can make your choice.

In addition to what hypervalent_iodine wrote, I want to add that you can find this also in the forum rules. The relevant section is section 2.7, and the relevant phrase is this one: ... Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. If you enjoy scientific discussions though, you have come to the right place. We welcome any contribution.

At this moment, as well as in 2011, China's economy is smaller than the USA, and BRICS is not the largest economic block in the world if you take the Western world as a single block, as you should (EU + USA is more integrated economically than the BRICS countries are). Also, a comparison on purchasing power is not relevant when talking international trade. We are discussing international trade. A Chinese person has a very low price level, and hence almost the same purchasing power, but if they want to buy an American product, they still have to pay the American price, which is a lot higher. Likewise, if Russia wants to buy goods in China, or China wants oil and gas from Russia, they buy it at market price, not at a price compensated for their national purchasing power. I read your other links with interest, but I am still not convinced that BRICS can thrive economically without the Western economies. As it says in the last link you posted, about the gas new pipeline to China, scheduled to open in 2020: "For Gazprom, it is about 20 percent of gas sales in Europe, the company’s largest export market.". Or, as I would say, only 20%. But at least we can agree that the Chinese economy is going to be huge in the future.

It really depends what you want to do. If you make a gasifier wood stove, you avoid some smoke problems, and you burn the wood cleaner than when you use a normal stoves. But you must burn the gas directly. When you use a gasifier wood stove, or if you burn the wood in a conventional stove, you essentially burn all the wood on the spot, and create only CO2, water vapor and little other gases and ash. The efficiency will be roughly the same, but the gasifier will produce less soot. Below, I also briefly discuss larger scale applications. This is not very relevant for you, since your home-made gasifier is much too small for that. If you want to transport the fuel through a pipeline, it may be more convenient to make a gas, since logs don't travel through pipes very well. There are plenty initiatives worldwide to create methane (natural gas) from biomass. And I believe that very few, if any, are economically profitable. Gas and shale gas are just too cheap. You can make methane from the gasifier's syngas with an additional process step similar to Fischer Tropsch synthesis. Also, the syngas you make will have a higher heating content (in "energy per mass") than the original wood, but you will lose some of the energy in the process (in absolute terms), because you obviously have to heat the wood to make the gas. So, for some applications it is better to have syngas. Finally, if you want to make electricity, it may have an advantage to make gas, because it enables you to use a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT), which has a much higher efficiency of electricity from fuel (55-59% according to wikipedia) than thermal systems which typically don't go much higher than 42%. That advantage may offset the losses in the gasification.

Russia has (relatively speaking) very little industry. In the last decades, Russia's economy has been transformed into a resource economy. From wikipedia: "Of Russian exports, more than 80% are oil, natural gas, metals and timber." They actually rely very heavily on imports of goods, in exchange for raw materials.

That idea has existed for a long time, as shown in this article (check the 6th idea how to move an asteroid), so I am not sure this is gonna make you rich. The core of the problem in moving an asteriod is how to move it the most with the least effort. The problem with your idea is that you need to bring enough propellant to move it. And while it is easy to bring a rocket to an asteriod, it is a lot harder to bring the necessary fuel tanks and fuel (look for example at modern rockets: the large majority of any rocket is just the fuel tanks). This is why people now look at using mirrors to heat a part of the asteroid, so that the evaporating gases will be the engine and move the asteroid. Using the sun's power, the space craft won't have to carry all that propellant with it.

I think it is quite straightforward: It is a big risk for any nation to rely on the cooperation of 1 country that is outside your sphere of influence. In the current global economy, almost all large trade blocks spread their risks by trading with many partners. If relations go sour with 1 partner, you still have others to trade with. For Russia therefore, it is unfavorable to trade with only China, especially since they do not control China, and would therefore be dependent on the decisions taken in Beijing, with little room to move. I think that DimaMazin used the word "isolated" because jduff seems to suggest that the BRIC(S) nations can develop completely independent from the EU/USA. Since China is the only major economy in the BRICS nations (it has over 50% of the GDP of the BRICS nations), this would effectively mean that Russia would trade only with China. Also, it is worth mentioning that jduff was factually incorrect about the size of their economy: BRICS total GDP is around 15 billion, while the USA has 16 billion all by itself, and the EU is even larger, with around 17 billion, so the size of the economy of the BRICS countries is not even half of the size of the Western economy, and that is excluding all the smaller nations that are depending on the Western nations for trade.

! Moderator Note Dear RABIASHAH, This sounds like homework to me. I have moved the post to the homework section. Please note that there is 1 extra rule for posts related to homework: A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed. So, RABIASHAH, please show us what you have done so far to get an answer to these questions. Everyone else, please wait for RABIASHAH to answer my question.

I don't think anyone disputes that the CO2 concentration goes up. Nobody disputes that it is at a historical high level (and still increasing). And I would think that is common knowledge (at least over here in the Netherlands most people know that CO2 increases, and that humans are the cause). The whole debate is about whether that extra CO2 will cause the earth to heat up. Still, it is a nice presentation. I don't think the dramatic music is necessary though. I would rather listen to a voice who explains or gives additional information.

Who are "they"? If we know that, maybe we can answer the question.

Of course it should be allowed. Personally, I'm all for gay rights, and that means treating it the same to the law, and no discrimination. That in turn means that kids get to see it. In the Netherlands, kids see gay couples on the streets, so why not on television? (I am not saying that they are constantly kissing on the streets, but it could happen, and nobody would object if it is just an affectionate kiss, without any sexual meaning). At the same time, please let the outrage rage on a bit. It will take a society a while (read: decades) before it will totally accept this new freedom. While the law can be very black-and-white about something like gay rights, social acceptance is more subtle and requires much more time. It seems however that the USA is (slowly) moving in the right direction, although I am worried that some smaller groups of its population (the religious right wing) seems to move in an opposite direction, resulting in a more polarized society. But I must add the disclaimer that I actually know very little about the religious groups in the USA and I may be talking about either a stereotype or a very small minority. Also, it could be that they seem more present because they are are being forced into a defensive position in the discussion, because society changes around their conservative values, resulting in a lot more noise from them.

! Moderator Note Multiple physics experts have explained all the ins and outs of the topic. This thread has gone around in circles since the very beginning, and now that it has lost all momentum, it is time to close it. Thread closed.

Agreed. This whole conflict started already in 2004 with the Orange revolution, and Europe has been pulling on Ukraine for a long time. While the success in Ukraine was not complete (although there is a western-oriented government in Kiev, the Crimea is now Russian), other countries were absorbed into the EU/NATO sphere of influence completely: the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Actually, the success of the West is exactly why Putin is doing what he's doing now: he has to put an end to the deconstruction of Russian influence. If it would continue a little longer, there wouldn't be anything left.

! Moderator Note John Cuthber, Please observe our forum rules, especially section 2.8, regarding soapboxing and preaching: Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. Your last post does not add any useful information to this thread, and it seems was written only to put down dijinj. Especially the last sentence, while generally a good idea, doesn't have to be repeated over and over again. dijinj, You have been arguing with a number of physics experts for a long time. It might be that you are lacking some other higher math. It might be that you haven't understood what others tried to tell you. But it surely comes across as if you are ignoring them, and that has annoyed a lot of people. So, stop ignoring people, and engage in a discussion. Don't just stubbornly defend some ideas that all the others say don't work. Try to learn. Do not reply to this mod note in the thread. If you have any problems with it, use the report button at the bottom of this post.

! Moderator Note Everybody, Please remember that participation in a thread isn't always about winning. It is ok to agree to disagree on a political topic which is often partially subjective. The discussion has become rather unfriendly at times, which is totally unnecessary since all those involved are very capable members with a good track record. Also, you do not have to attack each and every small detail that you disagree with. And if someone said something just a little bit wrong, then sometimes it helps to open a comment with a positive note before pointing out the small issue. Try to discuss the main topic. In short: I want everybody to be extra extra extra nice in the next number of posts. And that's an order.

! Moderator Note copernicus1234, Please stick to the science. While the thread started off quite well, it has now evolved to something close to trolling, and it attracted the attention of the Big Bad Moderators who sometimes suspend or ban members who don't behave. Please behave. In case of doubt, you can check our forum rules, as well as the etiquette guide. Do not respond to this post in the thread. If you have any problems with it, you can use the report button at the bottom of this post.

Bond has M and Q. Especially Q gave him an edge, by giving him lots of gadgets. Also, he had in fact the entire UK and US intelligence machine behind him. It's just that they always showed up only to clean up the mess, after Bond blew everything up singlehandedly.

If you make a relatively long tube, and a relatively large and flat reservoir at the top, the water level should not drop much as the container empties, so you take that out of the equation altogether. Then at least you don't have to adjust your 'flow restrictor' while it empties. Btw, a "valve" is probably the most common "flow restrictor". Can I ask what the project is aiming to achieve? Is it a hobby project? Or something for school?

If this were a kickboxing forum, you'd have put it the other way around.

Since the OP specifically asks for opinions on the matter, I will state mine here: People can pray as much as they like, and since prayer typically takes mere minutes, I wouldn't object if they do that during working hours (as much as I don't object people getting coffee or tea). However, prayer is a personal matter, and it should never be forced onto any non-religious people, or people of a different religion. Therefore, it cannot be a not a part of any official meeting. People can go pray in special rooms for prayer where they are not to be disturbed. Prayer should obviously not be allowed before a meeting. It is completely irrelevant to the meeting. In addition, I think Phi for All made a great comment, suggesting that the not everybody will participate in the prayer, which creates a situation where not everybody is equal. That is obviously very undesirable. That quote shows that the prayer is not to be a public matter anyway (it is basically aimed at only the Christians), and therefore they might as well not do it in public at all.

Yes, it would probably affect the flow rate. It does matter whether your container is closed or open (e.g. a bottle with just 1 opening, or a watering can, which has two openings). What matters is not so much the volume, as the difference in height between the top of the water level, and the height of the opening of your container where it pours out. If you want to do some calculations, you should read up on Bernoulli's principle, although it may be a little complicated, since you indicate that you're not a "science person". If you explain a little more what you want to achieve, we can give feedback at the right level of complexity.

No, Russia has a sphere of influence. So does the USA. Russia wishes to restore its sphere of influence, while the US has been actively chipping away at it, absorbing parts into its own influence, such as the Baltic, East and Central Europe, Georgia and more recently Ukraine. The behavior of the US (and its allies) pushes Russia into a defensive aggression. The situation where Russia acts as an aggressor is a logical development from the last decade. The question is now how Russia plays its cards. Will it use military force, or its covert ops (as it is doing now) or only political? It seems that Russia is playing a relatively safe game, without direct military involvement (other than the covery ops its does in Ukraine, with some 'green men' without official insignia). Anyway, the situation that Russia tries to create is no different from what the USA already created: The US have lots of influence in Europe. For example, they have a military presence in Europe. That is no occupation force, and it does not mean that the USA owns Europe. But it does show that the US have influence in Europe. Obviously, the opinion of Washington also matters in other, non-military issues.

Right, so the velocity has no direct relation to any process going on inside the rocket. Rather, the relative differences between the velocities of these propellants is what is interesting.

Yes, that was my first thought as well, but the OP clearly states that they must try to apprehend each other, so the goal is clear (even though their skill sets aren't necessarily useful to achieve the goal).