I course, I pose and then immediately see rook e5.
I'm confused why Gate's final move is listed as a ?? blunder. I can't find any move on that turn which avoids checkmate.
I wouldn't be too surprised. Evolution as a tuning process is very effective, but it has issues about getting stuck in just-effective-enough configurations. We evolved to be fairly intelligent, but the body is clearly programmed for using less food energy than is currently available in modern times. There has been some speculative research linking the domestication of fire to increased brain mass. This isn't because larger brains meant we were smart enough to figure out fire, but instead because fire allowed us to digest more foods efficiently, increasing the nutrients our brains could use. Modern agriculture is another jump in nutritional availability, but our bodies haven't adapted to this yet. There could potentially be an extremely effective but inefficient neurochecmical pathway which evolution discarded because conserving energy was the strongest selective pressure, and the alternatives were simply good enough.
You can do plenty about bad students, just not through the schools. The strongest factors which correlate with poor academic performance are poverty and food scarcity at home.
Maybe it's recursive, if the voltage is still unstable at the lower draw the car could lower it again.
This object is in an ugly middle between being a separate star or just a planet. Are there any models that consider both star and planet formation as the same process? If we built our programs to model one or the other, it's easy to see why we wouldn't have predicted distant but non-fusing binary partners. Note, it seems that 650 AU is quite distant even for a binary companion, alpha centauri A and B wobble between 16-32 or so AU between them, and have a larger orbit than most.
People were price checking purchases using their phones, not actually looking to buy online. If someone is shopping on a tablet, they really mean to buy something with it.
This is not a case of someone having a faster network. It could only have been done by insider knowledge. They beat the speed of light, so unless the Fed announcement was bad news I don't know how else that could've happened.
So now my girlfriend can't walk out with my steam collection and the cat. Whoop dee-doo.
If your ISP resets all of their user's download limits on the 1st of the month, they are admitting that the data caps do not exist to preserve network performance. If monthy caps were actually in place for technical reasons, the network would tank on the reset day as everyone's ability to download opens up again. Since this doesn't appear to happen, it appears that A: An insignificant number of users actually hit the download cap, which implies they hardly affect network performance, or B: The cap exists for the sole purpose of wringing more money out of these heavy users. The other option is C: Enough users actually ration their bandwidth to avoid hitting the caps.
It's actually extremely awesome. Lets say a group of satellites is falling out of position. We could launch a single 'anchor' satellite loaded to the brim with propellant which would be able to effectively stabilize the rest of the constellation. That means the rest of the satellites can be launched with less propellant, making the system simpler and costs lower for everyone.