Your force balance is off- work = force x distance, and at the point of contact with the ground, the wheels are moving at 0 relative velocity. This means any friction between the ground and the wheels does 0 work (aka it is not a factor in your force balance). Instead, the balancing going on is the forward push generated by the propeller and the backwards drag from the air on the vehicle (this drag is 0 when the vehicle is moving the same speed as the wind, and increases as it gains speed from there).

Without a percieved benefit, I agree that the school should not be taking iris scans of the students, but I have to ask: what is the threat posed by the school doing this? What freedom is being given up here?

I could try to piece together an argument, but I would rather hear from someone that feels strongly about this.

Most users of this will probably fall in one of three categories: those who actually stick close to what they would actually spend, those who pay more or more frequently than if using real money, and those who wouldn't spend any real money. Given this is on a voluntary basis, I doubt that many users would be erratic about using it, or otherwise substantially from one of the three profiles I'm expecting (if you were forced to use it, or using it only for a reward at the end, you might be more inclined to abuse the service).

While it would be silly to treat these numbers as directly representative of what you would see with actual money, it should provide some useful information if you take it with a grain of salt as there should be some correlation with real usage. It would be especially useful if later a limited test is done with real money and compared with these results, as it would be hard as-is to guess how much less would be donated with real money.

The *whoosh* is on you.

Bakker was trying to disprove the idea that science would be better off without religion. Given religion most certainly has come in conflict with science at various points in history, it is implied his examples must show religion helping the advancement of science. So when he brings up examples of religious people conducting science, the only way for it to help his argument is if he is suggesting that their religious work directly contributed to their scientific work. Otherwise he is just giving us examples of religion being neutral to science, which is just as well demonstrated by any scientist that wasn't known for their religious work.

In other words, Bakker falled to prove his point, leaving us to conclude that, at worst, science would be where it is today if there were no religion (as that is the best his arguments seem to demonstrate).

I know! Everyone is right! You see, life started on Earth, but then a giant meteor smashed into earth, which happened to send some rocks into space that had bacteria on them. That meteor was so big, it wiped out all life on Earth, so years later when some of those rocks landed back on Earth, they became the source of all life we see today.

As you approach a stale green, you should be thinking about where that line is between stopping and running the yellow. That way, in the event the light does change, you already know what you plan to do (and if you decide to stop you can ease into your braking to better warn the driver behind you).

I sure hope the NASA video includes the sound the asteroid makes as it goes by.

My brother has controls like that. Just a few weeks ago the lever somehow got messed up, and even when accelerating (pushing the lever), it would also apply the brakes (which should only be when pulling the lever). Driving the car to the shop that installed the equipment was not fun, I hear.

I'm certainly glad my brother merely had the reverse of this guy's problem.

It is far easier to look through the tabs on the ribbon to find something than it is to go through the old menus. At first I didn't like the ribbon, but now that I am used to it, I have found going back to office 2003 to be unusable. I don't know why you think having a couple more tabs is something to complain about, I think most people can figure out whether "mailings" would have the feature they are looking for. While some features have detailed popup menus as before, it is rare that I need to use those. It is much easier to go from one tab to another to find something, than to try and look through the dropdowns and find all the menus you can access from there.

Sure, some rarely-used features may be hard to find if they are not located on the ribbon, but I've done enough hunting through the old menus to know it's no worse in that respect.

I agree that the ribbon falls well short of its potential in Word due to 'Styles' taking up all that space, but even with that handicap I find it more useful.

Until charging stations are more ubiquitous and charging is faster, electric vehicles might do best in 2-car households so you have a gas-powered car as needed.

And there are 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, and 365 days in a year (give or take). Make the switch to measuring time in powers of 10 if you think it's inherently better.

How much of those donations to churches go on to charitable causes? Sure, plenty of it goes to keep the building operational and pay the priests, but many churches also do charity of some form.

You mean arable? Arid land is desert (which Antarctica already is).

So changes to growing seasons, rainfall and flood patterns have zero risk of killing people or causing starvation, and humanity can deal with such changes with little more than a shrug, but replacing a coal plant means certain doom?

Whether or not you agree with him, parent is not a troll.