0
What else can I help you with?
It possible to accurately predict the sex of a part icular offspring what orwhy not?
No because you don’t know what the speed detmerman’s
Is why would you tell her that because I was going to say we went a question?
Yes it is a question. It could also be expressed more clearly as two sentences. For example:Why would you tell her that because I was going to say we went?orWhy would you tell her that? I was going to say we went.
Iknow thisgirl thatis afriend andshe opensup morewith timthen meand shehas knownuse boththe sameamount toof timeHow cani gether toopen upto melike shedoes withtim orwhy doesn'tsheopenup?
just ask her some regular questions and gradualy incerease.
What is the funnyest joke ever?
In 2002, Richard Wiseman conducted a study to determine the funniest joke in the world, as well as the funniest jokes from several countries around the world. Two hunters are in the woods, when one of them suddenly collapses. He wasn't breathing, and his eyes looked glazed. Thinking quickly, the other guy grabs his cell phone and calls for help. He shouts at the emergency operator, "My friend is dead! What do I do!?" "Calm down", the operator says, "I can help you. But first, we need to make sure he's dead." The phone goes silent, for a second. Then the operator hears a gunshot. "Ok", says the hunter, "what now?" Reference: hubpages.com The-Funniest-Joke-Ever-Told
What is the importance of science as a school subject?
Several reasons. 1. The scientific method is a good guide to solving many life problems. Such as going on dates.. you experiment with the person and draw conclusions, which may or may not be your original thoughts (hypothesis) 2. It is important for everyone to have a general undnerstand of our bodies, so that when something goes wrong we are more easily able to identify it. Same with the study of the planet.
Why is it important to know that some words in English are from other languages?
In one sense, it is not important at all.However, it is a very interesting fact.Knowing that English is a mixture of words from many different language sources helps us to appreciate English history, English culture, and the versatility of the English language.Sometimes the meaning of a word can become clearer if we know its origins, which can help us see the root, or underlying sense, of a word.Sometimes we have to explain to another person what an English word means in their language. If we know the foreign roots, we can help them make the connections between their own language and the English language, which may, in turn, help them understand the English word a bit better.Knowing that English is from many sources also helps people understand why there seems to be no fixed rules for English spelling. And why the grammar for many verbs is irregular. The only explanation is that English has evolved from words from a wide range of other languages.The sooner the learner can accept this fact, the quicker they will move on and learn the language, rather than worrying about ...why some words are spelt in a strange way,why the conjugation is hard to follow, orWHY each phrasal verb has a meaning that is totally unrelated to the actual words used in the expression!SUMMARYIt is not important to know that the English language uses some words from other languages. BUT! Knowing that some (many? most? all?) English words are from non-English sources certainly answers a lot of questions!MOTTO FOR LEARNERS: Accept, and move on!
How is the earth tilted towards the sun during spring?
Being very nearly spherical (shaped like a round ball), it's kind of tough to say thatthe Earth "is tilted" ... a tilted ball is still a ball.The Earth's rotation axis points toward a spot in the sky that's very near the star Polaris.In that direction, the axis makes an angle of about 67.5 degrees to the ecliptic, the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.When you see a drawing of the Sun and the Earth in its orbit around it, you're temptedto assume that the Earth's north pole points straight up, making a right angle with thedirection toward the sun. There's really no reason why it ought to point that way, orwhy it should tilt at an angle of 42 degrees, or 87 degrees, or zero, or any other angle.It just happens to be about 67.5 degrees.If it were 90 degrees, then earth would have no seasons. And if it were much lessthan it actually is, then the seasons might be so extreme that life on Earth might bealmost impossible.The ecliptic - the plane in which the orbits of all the planets including Earth lies - is also tilted with respect to the Galactic Equator (about 60 degrees) The mass of the galaxy is so great that reasonably that should be a frame of reference but in space there is no up and down!
Is a historical event always true?
The 'truth' is one historian's version of history. Let me explain further by example. Yesterday, a friend, John, and I witnessed an accident between a truck and a car. The police took statements from John, me, the truck driver, and the driver of the car. Each of our 'historical accounts' of this event, now in the past, differ from each other's accounts of the same event. Only the truck driver saw the young child whom he tried to avoid hitting. The driver of the car was talking to her daughter and admitted to not paying attention to the road, but the truck hit her. John was facing me, so he never saw the truck coming down the road. I was facing John and saw the top of the truck, but John's body blocked the lower truck from my view. However, I did see a young mother pull her toddler son out of the way, where he had gone onto the street to get a ball that rolled away. The female driver of the car insists the truck driver is at fault. The young mother claims her son was "never in the street!!" The truck driver saw the child in the street; I saw the mother pull the child from the street. Whose account of the accident is 'correct'? Answer: ALL of the accounts are technically correct--from the perspective of each person and how much//how little they recount their story correctly. But that's why in the case of accidents we have police and 'accident reconstructionists', who tell US the "official" version of the historical event.1. The question is not properly constructed to give an answer that is subject to an opinion, maybe. What the question could read is as follows. " Are historical events correctly documented by historians?"2. The answer is that most major historical events are indeed correctly documented or other historians would have another version of the events. In that case, IF the event was a significant one, the other versions of it would be published as well.3. The first part of the answer to this "impossible" question is totally suited to the Law and Public Issues category. It's a perfect answer to this: " Are eyewitness accounts of an event the best source of the truth?" It's a classical courtroom discussion and is discussed in Law Schools. The overwhelming answer is exactly what is shown in the answer above by the first responder.4. Returning to part number 2. On a factual basis yes major, significant historical events are indeed correct. Examples: When did the US Civil War begin? ORWas Julius Caesar murdered? When did the Russian Bolshevik Revolution take place?Here are significant historical events that cannot be disputed. What is most important to know is "WHY" ..Here we get into the philosophy or even bias of the historian. So "What started the US Civil War?" Was it the assumption that President elect Lincoln would abolish slavery? Was it a States Rights issue and/or did the leaders of the South had plans to carve out an empire in Mexico?orWhy was Julius Caesar murdered?Now another point is the philosophy of the historian... Karl Marx believed that history followed a scientifically proven path based solely on economics. He'll have an economic answer to Caesar and same with the Civil War.If an historian is biased against "dictatorships" then his opinions regarding Julius Caesar will reflect that.The same is true of world history, a country's history, etc. The versionS are written, studied, re-written and re-written, per "experts" vision of "what happened" and "what REALLY happened". First person accounts are given some weight-- but as well, first person accounts are also viewed with some suspicion; what benefits does Person A have in telling a story a certain way? Countries have a particular 'view' of events that differ from the citizens' views, EVEN different from First Person Accounts. Whose version is "right"-- policymakers and politicians, or people who were present? This is one reason we have so many "histories". Over time, one generally accepted account wins over / trumps all other accounts.
