my intuition would say that if it takes 30km/s for Earth orbit, that slowing down to 29km/s would be enough so that it'd eventually spiral into sun?
What happens to such an object slowed down to 18km/s, does it take a more elliptical orbit then the earth?
If you only canceled out 1 km/sec of the velocity then you would just orbit a bit closer to the Sun.
As for whether the orbit would be circular or elliptical it depends on how the velocity change is done. Remember that velocity is a vector. If any part of the velocity vector has a component which is perpendicular to directly into the Sun then you will continue to orbit the sun. If all of the velocity is perpendicular to a path directly into the Sun then you will have a circular orbit. The more that your velocity is toward the Sun, the more elliptical your orbit will be.
The only way you would spiral into the Sun would be if you were losing velocity perpendicular to a path directly into the Sun. This could be through interaction with interstellar dust or through the action of a rocket. Look at something like a comet. There are many comets that have been orbiting the Sun for millions upon millions of years in highly elliptical orbits. They slow down a little over those years and they do spiral closer to the Sun but it still will be quite some time before they slow enough to crash into it. In fact, most crash into it because their orbits have been changed due to interaction with another large body such as Jupiter which changed the direction of their velocity vector from being partially perpendicular to the Sun to being almost directly into it.
The other thing is that you really don't have to get down to a velocity of 0 km/sec because the Sun is not a point but rather it is a sphere. However, you would need to get down to fairly close to 0 in order to take up a close enough orbit to crash into the surface. I just said 0 because it wasn't worth working out if it was 1 km/sec or 0 km/sec that was needed to orbit close enough.
Why ship it to the moon to incinerate it... you could just nudge it out of earth's orbit and let the sun pull it the rest of the way in and it'll be vaporized.
From what I understand it actually takes more energy to send something from Earth orbit into the Sun than it would take to send the object on a path to escape the solar system. This is because in order to crash into the Sun you first have to cancel out the velocity imparted by being in Earth's orbit around the Sun in the first place. However if you wanted to leave the solar system you would simply add some velocity to your orbit around the Sun and this would kick you to an orbit further from the Sun.
In other words the quantity of energy needed to lower your orbital velocity to zero relative to the Sun would be less than the amount you need to add to escape from orbiting the Sun. This means that it probably takes less energy to send something to the Moon than it would take to send it to the Sun.
According to my quick calculations it would take a velocity of approximately 42 km/s to escape the solar system from Earth's orbit. Earth imparts a velocity of approximately 30 km/s to any object which is in a similar orbit around the sun. This means that you would need to either slow down by 30 km/s to hit the sun (30 km/s - 0 km/s) or you would need to speed up by 12 km/s to leave the solar system (42 km/s - 30 km/s).
Strange, but true - it actually takes less energy to leave the solar system than it is to crash into the sun from Earth orbit. This, of course, is not counting stuff like orbital slingshots around other planets and such which could decrease the energy needed for both crashing the Sun and leaving it.
Here's the site where I got some of the data I used for my calculations, as well as the formulas for escape velocity and such.
Man, don't be a cut-and-paste troll. This was lifted verbatim from an article at osViews.com yet you make it sound like you came up with this yourself. You did not, you are just cutting and pasting someone else's insightful words.
Moderators, please do not reward cut-and-paste trolls. If someone looks like they deserve an upmod then take the time to do a quick Google search to see if they are taking credit for someone else's words.
Surely pork and ham are the same thing? Is a ham not a cured piece of pork?
Ham is pork but pork can be something other than ham. Pork is the name given to any meat from a pig, a ham is specifically the thigh and upper leg of a pig. You can learn about all the different cuts of pork at this web site. Ham can be salted, smoked, sugar-cured, dry-cured, aged, baked, boiled, etc. There are literally dozens of different types of ham, depending on how it is treated and where it is made.
TechTV has a summary of all the teams, as well as some streaming video.
Yeah streaming video that they took the liberty of re-encoding in Windows Media player format. Nice going Tech TV! You took perfectly good AVIs and MP4s and Microsofted them. No wonder Microsoft has 90% + of the computer market...
our BBB shows how many complaints the company has had total, how many resolved, and how many unresolved. That tends to show people what type of business is being run.
I've filed several Better Business Bureau complaints, including one against a company in the North Carolina (against Ubi Soft, Inc). I've never seen the BBB change the complaint statistics as a result of my complaints. Of the three times I've gone through the complaint process I have never received any satisfaction from the companies involved and the BBB has not added my complaint to the total complaints against the companies.
The BBB is a paper tiger that does little more than to allow people to feel like they are complaining to someone who can make a difference. The fact is that the BBB is not for the consumer, it is an organization which is paid by companies in order for them to get a feel-good BBB logo to plaster around and to serve as a buffer between themselves and the public.
If you have a problem with a company go to the Federal Trade Commission or your State Attorney General. They are much more likely to be able to give you some serious assistance in getting satisfaction from an abusive company.
The 500 books is on an optional 512MByte memory stick, not on the built-in 10MByte memory.
So that gives us roughly 10 * 500 / 512 = 10 books, more or less.
10 books is more than enough for casual reading, assuming that I can easily move books on and off the eBook via a jukebox-style application. The only problem I can see is someone who carries a lot of texts around for reference. Say, a programmer who has several long programming language reference books or a student who carries around all of their coursebooks.
10 books will probably still be fine for these type of people, it will just be a bit tighter for them and they may have to shuffle books around a bit more. For those who truly need more room, that's why there is an optional memory stick.
The parent poster, Chuck Bucket, is a plagiarism troll. This post was taken from this site. Mods, please check the post text on Google before you mod it.
You are decieved by your GUI. The AIFFs are just a visual trick in the Mac Finder -- the CD audio is still being "ripped" when you copy one of the files.
Not if I use iTunes or another program to copy the data off the disk. I know that the "files" you see on an audio CD in the Finder are just a convenience provided by the Finder.
I guess the confusion is over what exactly ripping means. I take it to mean that you are grabbing and converting the data into some other format. If I copy the audio directly from a CD and don't convert it I don't consider that ripping, that's just a simple copy operation.
Obviously an iPod doesn't have a laser and a way to spin a CD so it can't read the CD's surface but it can read the data just fine without any kind of conversion.
And where does the iPod read CDs directly? (No ripping it doesn't count because then it doesn't really matter if its wma or mp3 or ogg).
You do know that iPods can read AIFF files taken directly off of CDs, right? No ripping involved, AIFF is the native format for audio CDs. Just take a song off the CD, put it into a file and load it into the iPod via iTunes. Boom, the iPod plays it just fine. So iPods can, in effect, read CDs directly.
Even though I have no prior reason for distrusting Apple, I get the feeling that eventually this information will be accessible to developers paying a premium rather than those of us who signed up for the free account.
Actually, if anything Apple has gotten more free with its documentation. It used to be that Apple sold huge tomes called "Inside Macintosh" which described the inner workings and APIs of the Mac. There were at least 2 dozen of these books which covered every inch of programming on a Mac, gathered by topic. Each of these books would run $35 or so. You didn't need every one of them but it really helped to have about a half dozen of the key ones, so figure about $35 * 6 = around $200.
As Apple entered its current Mac OS X stage it began to take on more and more of a open-source flavor. Documentation was being distributed along with free programming tools, prices were dropping to become a registered developer, a free type of registered developer appeared, code was being released back to the community with minimal licenses, etc.
Right now it is the best time to be an Apple developer. It literally costs you nothing to become an official registered developer. If you do pay for one of the higher levels of being a registered developer you get significant price breaks and free stuff which pays many timed over for the price of registering. Students can pay a pittance of $100 and they get way over $500 in benefits. Apple staff is very responsive on their mailing lists and there are a ton of new developers out there who share your enthusiasm and who are willing to help.
As a worst case, even if Apple does change its policy (not likely because they WANT people to program for the Mac) and starts charging for programming documentation it is unlikely that the free programming information out there will disappear. That's because EVERY version of Mac OS sold in the last few years includes this free documentation. There's no way that Apple will change its APIs fast enough to make that documentation obsolete for at least a decade. Yeah a command here or there might get depreciated but Apple takes their time in truly tossing anything out. You will be fairly safe using old, free documentation that you can get freely off a Mac OS X cd from a few years past.
Right, so when they bond you end up with the oxygen's valence orbital looking like this: 2s:/\ \/ 3p:/\ \//\ \//\ \/ (those should be up arrows and down arrows, representing the electron spin pairs.
No one commented on this but of course that should really be:
Right, so when they bond you end up with the oxygen's valence
shell looking like this: 2p:/\ \//\ \//\ \/
I just thought I'd correct my typing error before someone used this to claim that I wasn't really a chemist or something...
The correct name is "dihydrogen oxide". Theres no need to put the "mono" on the oxygen.
Yeah, IAAC here too. I agree with you that you don't need the "mono" part, but there are a few cases where it is used, such as N2O. N2O is commonly known as nitrous oxide but the systematic name for it is dinitrogen monoxide. You can see a listing of the names of various nitrogen oxides here.
Pretty much it ends up boiling down to which usage was more popular. For most molecules the mono is dropped but there are a few molecules where it is kept. Another example is carbon monoxide. It could easily have been called carbon oxide but that form never really caught on.
Heh, heh, Incorrect information--Informative! Correct information--Informative! I'd love to cash in on some of that.
I've often thought that the most successful trolls are probably the ones who post a reasonable, though incorrect, argument in one account and then post through another account an equally reasonable correction to the post. That way the troll picks up karma twice.
There are a few such posts on Slashdot which make me think that there are trolls out there who use this method to inflate their karma. One wonders...
Right, so when they bond you end up with the oxygen's valence orbital looking like this: 2s:/\ \/ 3p:/\ \//\ \//\ \/ (those should be up arrows and down arrows, representing the electron spin pairs.
Each hydrogen atom's valence orbital will look like this: 1s:/\ \/ (again this is an up arrow and down arrow, representing the spin-paired electrons)
Because these orbitals are hybridized they end up as sp3 (sp superscript 3) hybrid orbitals, with oxygen as the central atom. Here is a non-wikki website illustrating just how this works out.
The actual electronegativity delta between O and H disregarding all other factors is 1.34 not 1.4... Without the aformentioned polar covalency ( see your post) which is just a fancy term for a covalent bond with SIGNIFIGANT ionic properties
Using the most accurate values I can find without digging out a CRC Handbook (I'm not near one right now) oxygen has Pauling electronegativity of 3.44, hydrogen has a Pauling electronegativity of 2.20. This means that the difference between the two is actually 1.24. So we are both off a bit but nonetheless we are far below where a molecule is considered to be ionic in quality. That happens at a difference of around 2.0. Despite what you think there is NO WAY a chemist is going to consider this bond to even remotely be ionic. Even at a difference of 2.0 the ionic character is considered to be just slightly better than 50%.
Now are you a chemist or a student who will be when he grows up one day? Not to be terribly harsh but when you put a smiley after you IAAC and use wiki for citations on scientific matters I start to have my doubts.
I am an analytical chemist who has worked in industry for over 10 years. I have a BS in Chemistry, working on an MS in Chemistry with a concentration in Analytical Chemistry. I put the smiley after the IAAC to indicate that I wasn't trying to beat people over the head with my credentials and the wikki reference was used simply because it was a fairly decent explanation of the subject without getting too deep into the science to be over the heads of the layman.
I deal with and build laser systems (so I know a little something practically about atomic valances and their quantium states) as part of my part time job as a security consultant and the rest of my time I spend in seminary or writing medical database applications.
I'm glad that you have small knowledge of chemistry and physics. However, this does not make you an expert in chemistry. While my explanations here have sided with keeping things simple for the layman rest assured that I have worked with this sort of material for the better part of 20 years, counting undergraduate work, graduate work, and real-world work in research laboratories. I would no more pretend to completely understand the ins and outs of security consulting (though I do program extensively and dabble in IS myself) than you should pretend to be an expert in chemistry.
Actually the OH- pair is considered to be ionicly bonded to the H+ ion (or really to an H3O+).
Just because a molecule can dissociate that does not mean that it is bonded ionically. Each hydrogen in H2O is bonded equally to the oxygen atom in what is called a sp^3 hybrid orbital, where the 2s orbital of the oxygen atom combines with the three 2p orbitals of the same atom in order to form four sp^3 hybrid orbitals. Two of those orbitals are taken up with unbonded electron pairs and each of the other two orbitals are covalently bonded to a hydrogen atom. You can see more about this on this web site.
Electronegativity really does not enter the picture here. Yes, oxygen is highly electronegative and it will tend to "pull" the electrons toward itself but that only means that the water molecule will be highly polar (and only because the charge separation is not symmetrical about all of the axis of the molecule). It is true that more highly electronegative atoms tend to form more ionic compounds than less highly electronegative atoms, but there are other factors at work here. For example, if you look at this web page you will see that the difference between the Pauling elecronegativities of hydrogen and oxygen is 3.5 - 2.1 = 1.4. By most definitions an ionic compound should have a difference in elecronegativity of at least 2.0. So water is a covalent molecule even by that definition.
All of these names are incorrect by chemical standards.
Alcohols and ethers are organic molecules by definition. If you take a look at that link you will notice that the formula for an alcohol is generally R-OH and an ether is R-O-R'. The "R" in those formulas stands for at least one carbon atom, and possibly an entire structure of carbon chains and branches. Since HOH doesn't have any carbon atoms it is almost definitely excluded from being called an alcohol or an ether.
Hydroxic acid is sort of a misnomer. While H2O would be considered an acid according to the Lewis definition and the Bronsted-Lowry definition of an acid, it is not considered an acid by the Arrhenius definition of an acid. So it all depends on how you look at it. One major thing that holds chemists back from calling water an acid is that generally something is considered to be an acid if it is in an aqueous solution. For water that's a bit of a circular definition and so it's not really used.
Di-Hydrogen Monoxide isn't the proper name for water. That would imply a H2 ion bonded to a O ion. IIRC, this is not correcct.
No, it is actually technically correct. (The best kind of correct!) In chemistry naming conventions you usually use this sort of naming convention for binary nonmetal-nonmetal chemicals.
For example: NO2 - nitrogen dioxide N2O - dinitrogen monoxide N2O5 - dinitrogen pentoxide CO2 - carbon dioxide
So it does make sense to say: H2O - dihydrogen monoxide
However the name hydrogen hydroxide is incorrect since that would indicate that the OH part of HOH (H2O ) is an ion and that the extra hydrogen is ionically bonded to it. This is not the case, in H2O both hydrogens are covalently bonded to the central oxygen atom.
some people say to aim a gun lower than where you want to hit because they instinctively flinch just before pulling the trigger. This flinch brings the barrel up slightly, and hopefully into the general vicinity of the target.
The easiest way to control this kind of reaction is to gently squeeze the trigger. Most people slam the trigger when they want to fire, thus jerking the gun upwards as they tense up during the firing.
Teaching someone to aim lower is just encouraging the formation of bad habits. It is better to teach them to properly fire correctly in the first place rather than compensating for the flinch reaction.
However, about a while ago I had the opportunity to fire several clips (or magazines? I forget) with a 9mm pistol in a large group of other first time shooters.
For a 9mm pistol you are most likely talking about a magazine.
Clips and magazines are two different things. A magazine is a holder of ammo. This can be anything from a pistol magazine to the ammunition storeroom on a large battleship. For small arms a magazine often includes a spring to feed the rounds into the firearm.
A clip is a convenient way to place a load of ammo into a magazine. There are several kinds of clips and clip-like devices such as stripper clips, revolver clips, and chargers.
To understand a bit more about these ideas, take a look at this site and also here.
C is still alive and kickin' in the NIX community I'd say.
C is going strong on Macintosh also. Cocoa programmers use mainly Objective-C which is fully backwards-compatible to C. You get the best of both worlds there. You can use C for the parts of your program where you really need the speed of C and can you use Objective-C where the advantages of object-oriented design best suit your program. Programmers who use the Carbon libraries instead of the Cocoa libraries also mainly program in C or C++.
There are many other languages available for Mac OS X but I would say that C, C++, and Objective-C are by far the most used. Since C++ and Objective-C are largely supersets of C, I would say that C is doing just fine under Mac OS X!
Slashdot Mirror
If you only canceled out 1 km/sec of the velocity then you would just orbit a bit closer to the Sun.
As for whether the orbit would be circular or elliptical it depends on how the velocity change is done. Remember that velocity is a vector. If any part of the velocity vector has a component which is perpendicular to directly into the Sun then you will continue to orbit the sun. If all of the velocity is perpendicular to a path directly into the Sun then you will have a circular orbit. The more that your velocity is toward the Sun, the more elliptical your orbit will be.
The only way you would spiral into the Sun would be if you were losing velocity perpendicular to a path directly into the Sun. This could be through interaction with interstellar dust or through the action of a rocket. Look at something like a comet. There are many comets that have been orbiting the Sun for millions upon millions of years in highly elliptical orbits. They slow down a little over those years and they do spiral closer to the Sun but it still will be quite some time before they slow enough to crash into it. In fact, most crash into it because their orbits have been changed due to interaction with another large body such as Jupiter which changed the direction of their velocity vector from being partially perpendicular to the Sun to being almost directly into it.
The other thing is that you really don't have to get down to a velocity of 0 km/sec because the Sun is not a point but rather it is a sphere. However, you would need to get down to fairly close to 0 in order to take up a close enough orbit to crash into the surface. I just said 0 because it wasn't worth working out if it was 1 km/sec or 0 km/sec that was needed to orbit close enough.
From what I understand it actually takes more energy to send something from Earth orbit into the Sun than it would take to send the object on a path to escape the solar system. This is because in order to crash into the Sun you first have to cancel out the velocity imparted by being in Earth's orbit around the Sun in the first place. However if you wanted to leave the solar system you would simply add some velocity to your orbit around the Sun and this would kick you to an orbit further from the Sun.
In other words the quantity of energy needed to lower your orbital velocity to zero relative to the Sun would be less than the amount you need to add to escape from orbiting the Sun. This means that it probably takes less energy to send something to the Moon than it would take to send it to the Sun.
According to my quick calculations it would take a velocity of approximately 42 km/s to escape the solar system from Earth's orbit. Earth imparts a velocity of approximately 30 km/s to any object which is in a similar orbit around the sun. This means that you would need to either slow down by 30 km/s to hit the sun (30 km/s - 0 km/s) or you would need to speed up by 12 km/s to leave the solar system (42 km/s - 30 km/s).
Strange, but true - it actually takes less energy to leave the solar system than it is to crash into the sun from Earth orbit. This, of course, is not counting stuff like orbital slingshots around other planets and such which could decrease the energy needed for both crashing the Sun and leaving it.
Here's the site where I got some of the data I used for my calculations, as well as the formulas for escape velocity and such.
Man, don't be a cut-and-paste troll. This was lifted verbatim from an article at osViews.com yet you make it sound like you came up with this yourself. You did not, you are just cutting and pasting someone else's insightful words.
Moderators, please do not reward cut-and-paste trolls. If someone looks like they deserve an upmod then take the time to do a quick Google search to see if they are taking credit for someone else's words.
Please mod the parent down accordingly...
Ham can be salted, smoked, sugar-cured, dry-cured, aged, baked, boiled, etc. There are literally dozens of different types of ham, depending on how it is treated and where it is made.
Given that Spam is spiced ham I doubt that anyone is going to get Mad Cow Disease from it...
Yeah streaming video that they took the liberty of re-encoding in Windows Media player format. Nice going Tech TV! You took perfectly good AVIs and MP4s and Microsofted them. No wonder Microsoft has 90% + of the computer market...
I've filed several Better Business Bureau complaints, including one against a company in the North Carolina (against Ubi Soft, Inc). I've never seen the BBB change the complaint statistics as a result of my complaints. Of the three times I've gone through the complaint process I have never received any satisfaction from the companies involved and the BBB has not added my complaint to the total complaints against the companies.
The BBB is a paper tiger that does little more than to allow people to feel like they are complaining to someone who can make a difference. The fact is that the BBB is not for the consumer, it is an organization which is paid by companies in order for them to get a feel-good BBB logo to plaster around and to serve as a buffer between themselves and the public.
If you have a problem with a company go to the Federal Trade Commission or your State Attorney General. They are much more likely to be able to give you some serious assistance in getting satisfaction from an abusive company.
So that gives us roughly 10 * 500 / 512 = 10 books, more or less.
10 books is more than enough for casual reading, assuming that I can easily move books on and off the eBook via a jukebox-style application. The only problem I can see is someone who carries a lot of texts around for reference. Say, a programmer who has several long programming language reference books or a student who carries around all of their coursebooks.
10 books will probably still be fine for these type of people, it will just be a bit tighter for them and they may have to shuffle books around a bit more. For those who truly need more room, that's why there is an optional memory stick.
The parent poster, Chuck Bucket, is a plagiarism troll. This post was taken from this site. Mods, please check the post text on Google before you mod it.
Not if I use iTunes or another program to copy the data off the disk. I know that the "files" you see on an audio CD in the Finder are just a convenience provided by the Finder.
I guess the confusion is over what exactly ripping means. I take it to mean that you are grabbing and converting the data into some other format. If I copy the audio directly from a CD and don't convert it I don't consider that ripping, that's just a simple copy operation.
Obviously an iPod doesn't have a laser and a way to spin a CD so it can't read the CD's surface but it can read the data just fine without any kind of conversion.
It's a good thing too because mixing oil with fertilizer would make quite an explosive mixture!
You do know that iPods can read AIFF files taken directly off of CDs, right? No ripping involved, AIFF is the native format for audio CDs. Just take a song off the CD, put it into a file and load it into the iPod via iTunes. Boom, the iPod plays it just fine. So iPods can, in effect, read CDs directly.
Actually, if anything Apple has gotten more free with its documentation. It used to be that Apple sold huge tomes called "Inside Macintosh" which described the inner workings and APIs of the Mac. There were at least 2 dozen of these books which covered every inch of programming on a Mac, gathered by topic. Each of these books would run $35 or so. You didn't need every one of them but it really helped to have about a half dozen of the key ones, so figure about $35 * 6 = around $200.
As Apple entered its current Mac OS X stage it began to take on more and more of a open-source flavor. Documentation was being distributed along with free programming tools, prices were dropping to become a registered developer, a free type of registered developer appeared, code was being released back to the community with minimal licenses, etc.
Right now it is the best time to be an Apple developer. It literally costs you nothing to become an official registered developer. If you do pay for one of the higher levels of being a registered developer you get significant price breaks and free stuff which pays many timed over for the price of registering. Students can pay a pittance of $100 and they get way over $500 in benefits. Apple staff is very responsive on their mailing lists and there are a ton of new developers out there who share your enthusiasm and who are willing to help.
As a worst case, even if Apple does change its policy (not likely because they WANT people to program for the Mac) and starts charging for programming documentation it is unlikely that the free programming information out there will disappear. That's because EVERY version of Mac OS sold in the last few years includes this free documentation. There's no way that Apple will change its APIs fast enough to make that documentation obsolete for at least a decade. Yeah a command here or there might get depreciated but Apple takes their time in truly tossing anything out. You will be fairly safe using old, free documentation that you can get freely off a Mac OS X cd from a few years past.
No one commented on this but of course that should really be:
I just thought I'd correct my typing error before someone used this to claim that I wasn't really a chemist or something...
Yeah, IAAC here too. I agree with you that you don't need the "mono" part, but there are a few cases where it is used, such as N2O. N2O is commonly known as nitrous oxide but the systematic name for it is dinitrogen monoxide. You can see a listing of the names of various nitrogen oxides here.
Pretty much it ends up boiling down to which usage was more popular. For most molecules the mono is dropped but there are a few molecules where it is kept. Another example is carbon monoxide. It could easily have been called carbon oxide but that form never really caught on.
I've often thought that the most successful trolls are probably the ones who post a reasonable, though incorrect, argument in one account and then post through another account an equally reasonable correction to the post. That way the troll picks up karma twice.
There are a few such posts on Slashdot which make me think that there are trolls out there who use this method to inflate their karma. One wonders...
Right, so when they bond you end up with the oxygen's valence orbital looking like this:
2s:
3p:
(those should be up arrows and down arrows, representing the electron spin pairs.
Each hydrogen atom's valence orbital will look like this:
1s:
(again this is an up arrow and down arrow, representing the spin-paired electrons)
Because these orbitals are hybridized they end up as sp3 (sp superscript 3) hybrid orbitals, with oxygen as the central atom. Here is a non-wikki website illustrating just how this works out.
Using the most accurate values I can find without digging out a CRC Handbook (I'm not near one right now) oxygen has Pauling electronegativity of 3.44, hydrogen has a Pauling electronegativity of 2.20. This means that the difference between the two is actually 1.24. So we are both off a bit but nonetheless we are far below where a molecule is considered to be ionic in quality. That happens at a difference of around 2.0. Despite what you think there is NO WAY a chemist is going to consider this bond to even remotely be ionic. Even at a difference of 2.0 the ionic character is considered to be just slightly better than 50%.
I am an analytical chemist who has worked in industry for over 10 years. I have a BS in Chemistry, working on an MS in Chemistry with a concentration in Analytical Chemistry. I put the smiley after the IAAC to indicate that I wasn't trying to beat people over the head with my credentials and the wikki reference was used simply because it was a fairly decent explanation of the subject without getting too deep into the science to be over the heads of the layman.
I'm glad that you have small knowledge of chemistry and physics. However, this does not make you an expert in chemistry. While my explanations here have sided with keeping things simple for the layman rest assured that I have worked with this sort of material for the better part of 20 years, counting undergraduate work, graduate work, and real-world work in research laboratories. I would no more pretend to completely understand the ins and outs of security consulting (though I do program extensively and dabble in IS myself) than you should pretend to be an expert in chemistry.
Just because a molecule can dissociate that does not mean that it is bonded ionically. Each hydrogen in H2O is bonded equally to the oxygen atom in what is called a sp^3 hybrid orbital, where the 2s orbital of the oxygen atom combines with the three 2p orbitals of the same atom in order to form four sp^3 hybrid orbitals. Two of those orbitals are taken up with unbonded electron pairs and each of the other two orbitals are covalently bonded to a hydrogen atom. You can see more about this on this web site.
Electronegativity really does not enter the picture here. Yes, oxygen is highly electronegative and it will tend to "pull" the electrons toward itself but that only means that the water molecule will be highly polar (and only because the charge separation is not symmetrical about all of the axis of the molecule). It is true that more highly electronegative atoms tend to form more ionic compounds than less highly electronegative atoms, but there are other factors at work here. For example, if you look at this web page you will see that the difference between the Pauling elecronegativities of hydrogen and oxygen is 3.5 - 2.1 = 1.4. By most definitions an ionic compound should have a difference in elecronegativity of at least 2.0. So water is a covalent molecule even by that definition.
By the way, IAAC (I Am A Chemist)
All of these names are incorrect by chemical standards.
Alcohols and ethers are organic molecules by definition. If you take a look at that link you will notice that the formula for an alcohol is generally R-OH and an ether is R-O-R'. The "R" in those formulas stands for at least one carbon atom, and possibly an entire structure of carbon chains and branches. Since HOH doesn't have any carbon atoms it is almost definitely excluded from being called an alcohol or an ether.
Hydroxic acid is sort of a misnomer. While H2O would be considered an acid according to the Lewis definition and the Bronsted-Lowry definition of an acid, it is not considered an acid by the Arrhenius definition of an acid. So it all depends on how you look at it. One major thing that holds chemists back from calling water an acid is that generally something is considered to be an acid if it is in an aqueous solution. For water that's a bit of a circular definition and so it's not really used.
No, it is actually technically correct. (The best kind of correct!) In chemistry naming conventions you usually use this sort of naming convention for binary nonmetal-nonmetal chemicals.
For example:
NO2 - nitrogen dioxide
N2O - dinitrogen monoxide
N2O5 - dinitrogen pentoxide
CO2 - carbon dioxide
So it does make sense to say:
H2O - dihydrogen monoxide
However the name hydrogen hydroxide is incorrect since that would indicate that the OH part of HOH (H2O ) is an ion and that the extra hydrogen is ionically bonded to it. This is not the case, in H2O both hydrogens are covalently bonded to the central oxygen atom.
You can see more about chemical naming conventions here.
The easiest way to control this kind of reaction is to gently squeeze the trigger. Most people slam the trigger when they want to fire, thus jerking the gun upwards as they tense up during the firing.
Teaching someone to aim lower is just encouraging the formation of bad habits. It is better to teach them to properly fire correctly in the first place rather than compensating for the flinch reaction.
For a 9mm pistol you are most likely talking about a magazine.
Clips and magazines are two different things. A magazine is a holder of ammo. This can be anything from a pistol magazine to the ammunition storeroom on a large battleship. For small arms a magazine often includes a spring to feed the rounds into the firearm.
A clip is a convenient way to place a load of ammo into a magazine. There are several kinds of clips and clip-like devices such as stripper clips, revolver clips, and chargers.
To understand a bit more about these ideas, take a look at this site and also here.
C is going strong on Macintosh also. Cocoa programmers use mainly Objective-C which is fully backwards-compatible to C. You get the best of both worlds there. You can use C for the parts of your program where you really need the speed of C and can you use Objective-C where the advantages of object-oriented design best suit your program. Programmers who use the Carbon libraries instead of the Cocoa libraries also mainly program in C or C++.
There are many other languages available for Mac OS X but I would say that C, C++, and Objective-C are by far the most used. Since C++ and Objective-C are largely supersets of C, I would say that C is doing just fine under Mac OS X!
Yep, this is yet another plagarism by this troll. You can find the original here.
Yet another plagarism by this troll. You can find this text right here, this poser I mean poster just copied it verbatim.