The "other equation" is just for the case where the minor body mass can be completely ignored (e.g. an artificial satellite).
And in such cases, the first equation can still be used and will give the correct answer, it's just that it's easier to use the second one when the lighter body is completely negligible.
The moon orbits the earth, not the other way around.
As in any orbital system, they orbit each other. The greater the mass imbalance, the less the lighter body matters, but that is still true. The equations aren't in and of themselves going draw a distinction between the two.
That could be, too. My point is that the fact that the cops don't want you to know where the traps are can't be used to argue one way or the other, because they'd want that if they wanted to cut down speeding or if they just wanted to get money, either way.
Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law. If people know about an upcoming speed trap, then they'll slow down to the speed limit.
Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Supposedly the idea isn't just to make you drive the speed limit at the speed trap, it's to make you drive the speed limit *everywhere* because you don't know where the speed traps are.
Unless you're very careful to give teachers a strong voice in management decisions --- through, e.g., strong, local, democratic unions --- "fire bad teachers" will become "fire teachers who take on difficult students/subjects, and think outside the test."
The problem is, if you *do* give strong teacher unions all the power, "fire bad teachers" becomes "never fire teachers at all, under any circumstances."
Oh come on, kids have been watching TV, listening music and reading books for many generations.
Kids have been watching TV for about two or three generations. They've been listening passively to music for perhaps four or five (before recording, people who wanted to hear music mostly performed it themselves--having visiting performers was a special occasion). Reading is a much less passive activity than the the other two, requiring the reader to interpret the written text.
An errant 30kw beam of coherent light would be dangerous even in far away places.
No, it wouldn't. A laser beam *defocuses* over long distances and becomes harmless. In an atmosphere it'll also suffer severe energy loss to the atoms it travels through.
Yes, but bookmakers don't set their odds based on an analysis of the event. They set their odds based on the bets they receive. That's *why* they are guaranteed their cut regardless of who wins.
I read the TFA (both of them) myself, and didn't find any more details about the closing over the "failure of a single valve" than was in the summary. I will point out to the OP, that there may have very well been adequate redundancy and that the single valve failure mandated the shut down of the project not because it disabled it but because it removed the redundancy and they wouldn't operate without it.
They're not talking about dementia. The kind of "senior moments" they're talking about may seem similar, but it's a different thing. There are studies that show that if you keep learning, it helps *stave off* dementia. Slow, but sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is not as ridiculous as it sounds. "Hello" was not a common greeting before it became standardized as the way to answer a phone.
If you're paying Verizon to do it, how is it DIY?
Matter of fact, it's all dark.
But there ain't no whales, so you'll just have to tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune.
And in such cases, the first equation can still be used and will give the correct answer, it's just that it's easier to use the second one when the lighter body is completely negligible.
As in any orbital system, they orbit each other. The greater the mass imbalance, the less the lighter body matters, but that is still true. The equations aren't in and of themselves going draw a distinction between the two.
And the joke was on them--he was actually stealing wheelbarrows!
That could be, too. My point is that the fact that the cops don't want you to know where the traps are can't be used to argue one way or the other, because they'd want that if they wanted to cut down speeding or if they just wanted to get money, either way.
I'll probably be gone.
Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Supposedly the idea isn't just to make you drive the speed limit at the speed trap, it's to make you drive the speed limit *everywhere* because you don't know where the speed traps are.
You mean I can't use my amazing dance moves?
The problem is, if you *do* give strong teacher unions all the power, "fire bad teachers" becomes "never fire teachers at all, under any circumstances."
Kids have been watching TV for about two or three generations. They've been listening passively to music for perhaps four or five (before recording, people who wanted to hear music mostly performed it themselves--having visiting performers was a special occasion). Reading is a much less passive activity than the the other two, requiring the reader to interpret the written text.
Because he'll save every one of us!
Yet more arguments against having Flash, then.
They dissipate due to defocusing and interaction with the atmosphere. It's not a problem.
No, it wouldn't. A laser beam *defocuses* over long distances and becomes harmless. In an atmosphere it'll also suffer severe energy loss to the atoms it travels through.
Yes, but bookmakers don't set their odds based on an analysis of the event. They set their odds based on the bets they receive. That's *why* they are guaranteed their cut regardless of who wins.
Because Lord knows fictional movies are where I go to get all *my* facts.
I see it got lousy reviews, too.
In the hands of the Cybermen, of course.
Actually, the first thing I thought of was this.
I read the TFA (both of them) myself, and didn't find any more details about the closing over the "failure of a single valve" than was in the summary. I will point out to the OP, that there may have very well been adequate redundancy and that the single valve failure mandated the shut down of the project not because it disabled it but because it removed the redundancy and they wouldn't operate without it.
"We don't want money. They need to bow down and acknowledge us as Lord."
No, if you are promising jobs that you can't actually guarantee, you don't need regulation, you need to be prosecuted for fraud. That simple.
They're not talking about dementia. The kind of "senior moments" they're talking about may seem similar, but it's a different thing. There are studies that show that if you keep learning, it helps *stave off* dementia. Slow, but sure.