Genady

Yes, in this sense: They are unlike anything that we usually visualize as a 'body'.

I think one cannot. I agree with this. Re homophobia, I still don't have any idea why straight people have any feelings about some people being homosexual. This is after many years of being adult straight male. I also discovered the existence of homosexuals the way described above, and my reaction was then, and still is, so what. I was shocked to discover that there was a law (in the former USSR) against it and that people go to jail for it. I could not understand it then and I still don't understand, why would anybody care.

How does one separate the "nature" from the "nurture"?

Yes.

I did it again? Quoted from the wrong place... I am sorry.

Yes. There are no surface-to-surface touching points in atomic and subatomic scales. No, it's not a limit, but a distance where the system has smallest potential energy.

Atoms are almost empty. Their nuclei are many degrees of magnitude smaller than atoms and electrons are points with no size. If there were no other forces, atoms would just go through each other. What stops them from passing each other is their electromagnetic fields and a quantum effect called Pauli exclusion principle.

I have figured it out. 1) Misspelling: 'in revenge' is 'v mesti' in the OP language while 'v meste' means 'in place'. One letter was wrong before translation. 2) 'Earth' and 'land' are the same word in the OP language. So, the expression, "earth in one revenge", should've been, "land in one place." And the question, meant to be, "Are there planets where all land is in one place?"

So, this is one area where the system needs change.

I don't believe it, and you don't give any such data.

Yes, and I think the teacher should ignore them and focus on the other 20%. Then the people who deserve it will get more of the teacher's time, energy, creativity, flexibility, and eventually even better education.

Right. I think that educators' role is to teach well those who want to learn rather than to fight cheating. This is what should drive design of education methods and system.

People should start adding a new section to their resume/CV, 'Prior reincarnations.'

This is misunderstanding. I was talking about people with degree, and compared those who got it while wishing to learn vs. those who got it while cheating. The last statement of that paragraph, meant to be in this context. Sorry, for not making it clear. This question, means to ask if surgeons and structural engineers get responsible jobs only because they have the degrees. I know that the answer is, no, they do not. This is why my answer to the question, is negative.

No, I'm not. But, really, are surgeons or structural engineers placed in highly responsible positions just based on their degrees out of school?

@geordief I don't think so. Those people will get out of school with knowledge and skills while others will not. Those people will be better at job interviews. They will succeed in jobs where others will fail. Degrees don't matter - job performance does.

There are people who want to learn. These people don't have any reason to cheat. They do their homework to learn and to practice what they learn. They take exams to see if they got it. They look for mentors. Educators work with these people.

Why would I?

I think that educators' job is to educate rather than to assess academic abilities. AI is not a problem in that.

Got it, thanks. But you see why it is confusing.

OK. I thought that "anything" means "whatever". For example, "anything" can be "not-B" or false. Evidently, it can't, but why?

What is a meaning of the words, "P(B) given anything"? I understand what P(B|A) means when A is an event that occurs or not, or a statement that is true or false. However, "anything" is neither, or is it?

I think I know. The cups will never get over the turning points on the very top and on the very bottom of the upper and the lower wheels. This is because regardless of how the cups are attached to the belt, it takes h longer way for the upper weight to reach the top of the upper wheel than it takes for the lower weight to reach the bottom of the lower wheel. See, for example, this: Thus, to get to the turning point the device needs at least Mgh extra energy. But, as @Lorentz Jr has derived above, this is equal to or more than the energy that all other cups can supply. So, the device will stop before reaching that configuration. QED

Here is where I'm not convinced. Let's say the energy lost in the weights falling into their new position is K. The total energy is then, ρhAgD - 2Mgh + 2Mgh - K (?)

@Saber I have to admit that the answer which for years I thought solves the puzzle, I have doubts about it now . I want to see where you and @Lorentz Jr go. If it turns to be the same answer, I'll share my doubts and we'll resolve them, hopefully.