J.C.MacSwell

No wonder? As in not surprising to you? Or that Paul deserved it? "Federal prosecutors said Boucher "had enough" after he witnessed Paul stack brush into a pile on his own lawn, but near Boucher's property."

Okay. Thanks Zap. I have to go but will try to reply tomorrow.

I'm not certain what you are asking. Who are the impoverished that the Democrats have sacrificed? Who are the deserving of pity Democrats that have been sacrificed? Something else? honest questions

Not in the same sacrificial sense.

I understood that. And don't disagree. Rich Democrats that tow the party line...for starters

By the Democrats as pawns...and ignoring that poverty is by far the greatest factor...

Most recently and most obviously Maxine Waters. Pelosi might seem less overly disappointing, given her track record.

I'm not sure if this statement is true or false. I do think they align more with Democrat values, and I think that's a good thing. Based on that, maybe it's just that the integrity of the Democrats most featured in the news seems overly disappointing.

That may be true, but you can always ask. They might surprise you with some good advice or guidance.

If you had liquid hydrogen in outer space, you could configure it's evaporation to produce thrust, if that is what you are asking. It would not be a very efficient use of the "fuel" but with no oxygen available it might be the best "McGiver" available. It's not free lunch, the entropy of your system increases. You still have the latent heat of fusion to work with, as a source of energy. Just make sure to save some of the hydrogen snowballs produced...throwing them might give you more thrust.

+1 for the effort but any discrepancy in the scale readings from what they would be due to simple calculations of Newton's laws will no doubt be due to the idiosyncrasies of the scale, assuming the test was otherwise accurately performed. In both cases described it should drop...after it rises first. You simply cannot elevate from rest without some force acting with greater force than your weight, nor lower from rest without the net force being lower. Either would violate conservation of momentum.

In "theory", that's dependant on favourable business conditions. You force unemployment on many who would not have moved on otherwise and they are scooped up by better options. In "practice" you can also create a situation where you have businesses folding and a local economy collapsing like a house of cards, creating less incentive for any replacement start ups. Edit:That's referring to what I bolded at the bottom of Ten Oz's post.

No. But being in different geographical areas does make for different markets for that food, and along with other factors the ability to pay for that labour. If you're paying attention, it does and it doesn't. Even "successful" unions, that allow the company to remain competitive, can limit available jobs to some extent to the advantage of their members. Good luck unionizing a company that doesn't have a natural (or otherwise) advantage to exploit, and then maximizing wages.

About 90% of those on death row use all available appeals they are allowed. That indicates to me they would prefer to be off of it and stay alive. Whether that means they would actually suffer less is another thing entirely.

Agree. For most I suspect it might alleviate some suffering though.

At the very least, capital punishment should require guilty beyond any doubt, not just reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors. That would keep many innocent people off of death row.

It's people!...damn dirty apes with cold dead hands are people!

Yes but also prior to your jump. In preparation for it as you bend your knees and your center of gravity is allowed to dip below your initial position. Of course this (stage) doesn't happen if you don't "wind up" and instead simply roll up on your toes compressing the scale, but that is what is shown in the graph.

I assumed Studiot was referring to the deweighting phase, in preparation for the jump, when the normal force on the scale would be reduced below that of the weight.

Because you push less against it. This

As you can somewhat tell from the force plot, from rest to final rest at the same point the downward force on the scale will average exactly the weight over time. (assuming an idealized constant gravitational field, and in a vacuum) Not all scales will show that exactly, but that is exactly what would happen. Same also....but the expert can only add incite into what the different parts of the plot might look like...they are still constrained by Newton's laws (which I think we all agree apply)

Sun also?

+1 During the time you spend on a scale, getting on, stepping off, outside forces notwithstanding, the force you put downward on the scale has to average over time at your weight...whether the scale accurately reflects that depends on the intricacies of the scale. Movement on the scale may temporarily change the downward force, either up or down, but if you start and finish at rest in the same spot it will average to be your weight. (not exactly exactly...as you can vary your buoyant force by compressing air in your lungs, etc, but heroics aside, mass loss from evaporation....anything I missed?...) Change in pull of the sun or moon? There are more but nothing significant. The scale will on average see a downward force equal to your weight, and whether it reflects it or not depends on the scale, not the downward force it opposes. As to: "A mass can be be lifted (raised to a higher level) with force less than its weight", if it has upward momentum you can maintain some of that for longer with a lesser force than it's weight than with none at all, and get it to a higher level than it would have otherwise...so yes?

Surely you're joking, Mr.Area54...

@ Zap & INow No doubt there's some effect on the numbers from testing at different times or places, or using different methods, but that's still quite a difference, 62 vs 94/96%. One in the 90s seemed to indicate effectiveness against the UK strain where it was dominant. "Pfizer and BioNTech said Thursday that their vaccine is 94 percent effective against asymptomatic cases after the second dose. The finding is significant because the latest analysis was performed when over 80 percent of Israel’s COVID-19 cases were from the U.K. variant B.117 , indicating that the vaccine is highly effective against this variant." I'm not sure how they would have achieved that result though...exposed vaccinated individuals to known asymptomatic cases?