Ophiolite

No. (And most of us are not looking for a coincidence that would be, when all is said and done, just that - a coincidence.)

So you screwed up badly and are unable to contemplate the possibility that some people don't screw up to the same extent. From a social standpoint, withholding trust on a routine and consistent basis is not a good idea. We have no way of knowing if we are not living in the Matrix, or lying in a coma imagining all this, or are part of an alien computer simulation. However, we do have good reason to believe it is highly probable that Russia engaged in the hacking of which they have been accused. It sounds exceptionally moral. Setting to one side ones resentment and hurt at a failure brought on by an opponent to support that opponent because you believe they now offer the best remaining option is an act showing great moral character. If you cannot see that you may fit into the subset of humanity called "agenda driven fool". That would be nice, but at least they are your liars. Would you welcome a neighbour telling you about a possible affair your spouse was having, when their motive was nothing other than to cause you grief? You give the US intelligence community rather more credit than they merit. The issue here is not the hacking. It is the use to which the hacked information has been put. If you are happy to have Putin and his apparatus improperly influence the direction of the US government, I can probably get you an honorary Captaincy in GRU. Two questions, from different perspectives: 1. If you were Iranian would you be happy about that? 2. Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? I've tried very hard, but as far as I can see that is a strawman argument. Well, I'm not supposed to be a scientist, but I do use my brain. It has been quite useful in helping me identify you as a hysterical zealot. Good luck with that modus operandi.

Well, I sure as hell don't follow you and as far as I recall I'm one of very small handful that have partially supported your position. Please, from the beginning, restate your basic position. Edit: And to enhance reading ease, it would be useful if you used the quote function. Is there a reason you are not?

You are going on a bit.

Then, my apologies to you for not catching the facetious/sarcastic tone. I am normally alert to such. Ignorance is widespread and I have my fair share, but I get annoyed when I think I see it where it ought not to be. (I completely agree with the inconsistency of universally available affordable health care. If humans have rights then that is certainly one of them.)

I rarely watch the news in time of economic stress. (The last nine years have been a bit of a bummer.) At all times I am more in line with OldChemE's thinking: acquire ones information after sufficient time has elapsed for in-depth analysis to have begun. If I am in a News watching decade I shall use what I see to give me a heads up on what to learn more about. The rest of the time I rely on the BBC web pages.

As to why some people are good at it and some people bad, it's the same reason some people are tall and some are short, some are fast and some are slow. A mixture of genetics and environment.

Nice one. (Useful for me, since I just started a brief study of World War II artillery practices, unit organisation and engagements. Like most specialties it is replete with abbreviations, though I had not run across this one.)

You may have got out of the habit of study. Focus on regular study in a consistent and conducive atmosphere. You have one advantage over most younger students. You have made a conscious and difficult decision to engage with this subject. This puts you streets ahead. Good luck.

Effective Fire Control? That's a WAG! Presumably one can reach a point where the gun is still capable of firing, but range (because of partial gas bypass) and azimuth (because of minscule deviation) are compromised.

It cannot. In a hypothetical rod of great stiffness as MigL suggests, perhaps, but such a rod is implausible. @Fiveworlds, as Klaynos points out transmission of information in solids is pretty basic physics. (I know it's really basic, because I know it.)

It is a great military tradition that, in terms of ordnance, vessels, equipment, training, tactics and strategy, command and control, one always prepares to fight the previous war, not the next one.

Since Bender and J.C.McSwell show no evidence of being ignorant of plumbing I assume you are addressing this to the OP. Clearly he is posting on a physics forum in order to find out why his plumbing is behaving as it is. What is unusual about that? This is just a suggestion, but it's probably not a sound idea to make such an aggressive and apparently silly post as your first contribution to the forum. Unless, of course, you intend silly and aggressive to be your hallmarks. Either way, welcome.

Wot! right back at you. Seriously, lad, you need to take a look into the reality of world healthcare. For all the current criticism the NHS takes, we are blessed compared with most countries on the planet. (I say lad, not to be patronising, but I can't entertain the notion that a fullscale adult could be so ill informed.)

Going briefly off-topic, I believe that once or twice I have advised a poster that I've given them a +1. That, and an accompanying explanation, have been to emphasise (and perhaps expand on) how relevant, accurate, useful, agreeable, etc. their post was. (I'll leave you to wonder if the +1 on your post #32 was from me. )

I understand the Khan Academy site is well regarded. Here is their section on Chemistry. This one might also interest you.

I don't know much about quicksand, but surely this effect would not be present when the sand is under a couple of feet of water already, as is the case here. Your thoughts?

Beaches are irregular. Shallow drainage channels are cut in the generally flat surface at low tide and, in the absence of significant wave action, will persist at high tide. If you walked on to the edge of one of these channels it would likely have collapsed under your weight. Based on the very limited information you have provided that is the best explanation I can come up with.

I have it to some degree. 1. I cannot copy and paste from a Word document into a blank Reply to Topic box. 2. I cannot copy and paste from a Word document into a Reply to Topic box that I have typed only a single character into. 3. I can copy and paste from a Word document into a Reply to Topic box if, and only if, I first type multiple characters into the box and then place the cursor within those characters. 4. I have no difficulty copying and pasting if I am using Quote from an earlier post. I have presumed this is just a character of the software. It is mildly annoying, but hardly a game stopper (for me).

Do you mean McDonald's? I have no idea what you mean by this statement. As has been pointed out by Strange, we didn't evolve from Neanderthals. There is every reason to think that they also had language and were of comparable intellect. (Certainly there brains were as large, or larger than ours.) There are many examples in the fossil record of rapid changes in organisms. I don't believe the evolution of human intelligence is especially remarkable as far as its timing is concerned. Do you have evidence that it is, rather than just a feeling based on your own lack of information? Have you seen the effort expended by Bower bird's? Do you feel that represents less effort than a primitive human carving? By the way, welcome to the forum. Be aware that the critical questioning you are receiving is not hostile, but just normal modus operandi for a science forum. If your ideas are sound you will be able to address the criticism. If your ideas are flawed, you will learn from the criticism. Everybody wins.

Here is what upsets me. It is individuals, such as yourself, who believe they are being open-minded, elegant and perceptive by asking questions. (There are however good questions and dumb questions.) And you make this ignorant implication: we never question what we are told. There are the words of someone whose education was either devoid of science training, or whose science training was grossly inadequate, or who completely ignored the science training. One is trained to question . . . . everything. You are aware, are you not, that scientists conduct experiments. Even in the very first year of science class in school, one conducts experiments. Are you unaware that an experiment is a question? Ignorance of this fact is forgivable. Continued ignorance, beyond this point where you have been educated, is not. Committed ignorance, in the face of contrary information, is delusional, foolish and requires one to question the sanity, intelligence or character of the perpetrator. Any questions?

Not sufficiently specific to be able to identify the number of Trump voting Republicans, even from as close as Mars!

Not only is it not right, but arguably abuse of power in this way should lead to more severe penalties for the offender. Prison sentences, for punishment and deterrence, should go also to anyone who seeks to protect the offender because of their position.

The convention on this forum is that members are very willing to help people with their homework (especially when they use clever thread titles), but they will not do so unless the member has shown that they have made some effort to provide their own answer. Presently that is lacking in your heartfelt plea. Consequently, unless you stumble across a member who likes to flaunt convention and knows the answers your query, then you are unlikely to get a response till you demonstrate that you have tried. For the record, I have no idea of the answers.

Taking these two observations together, I presume you would begin the simulation with the words "Let there be light."