CF-105 Avro Bolt 1997 news spot on the Avro Arrow from CBC News (The National). The Avro CF-105 Arrow was a delta-wing interceptor plane, designed and built by ...
Forgiveness in Motion Part 2 DANANG, VIETNAM - In Vietnam, more than 6,000 people are on a waiting list for some form of mobility. In Danang,the PET precipitate of Columbia, MO is ...
500 Internal Server Misprint OMG IT SAYS 500 Internal Server Error Sorry, something went wrong. A team of highly trained monkeys has been dispatched to parcel out with this ...
Wurlitzer SideMan - 1950s Pipe Drum Machine The Wurlitzer SideMan was arguably the world's first drum machine. It depends on whether you count the Chamberlin Rhythmate, which was introduced ...
In link to music, what is the definition of "sideman"?
How TO DOWNLOAD VIDEOS FROM ALL SIGHTS Through YOUTUBE for ... in this video i will show u How TO DOWNLOAD VIDEOS FROM ALL SIGHTS INCLUDING YOUTUBE. (for FIREFOX users only!) also u may want to fast onwards ...
Problems with Firefox opening couple more pages on start?
How can I fix Firefox browser because it opens everytime not only my homepage but 2 more pages from NoScript and Firefox modernize? I tried cleaning cache and everything I found. Still no ideea! Thanks!
Lord is His Own Best Friend Jesus may love the little children, all the children of the world... but he still has a soft detect for himself. http://www.blasphemychallenge ...
PURETONE | Given To Bass | SD Standard Definition | Apollo ... This is the Mad Max inspired car chase video for Puretone's UK chart topping hit 'Addicted To Bass'. Stellar Amiel, Megan Dorman and Kick Gurry ...
COBY DTV102 SET UP BOX DIGITAL ATSC STANDARD DEFINITION COBY
What is the maximun explanation I can get on a STANDARD DEFINITION TV with component cables?
What is the maximum resolution I can get from my standard definition tv with component cables...I have a DVD player and PS3 hooked up to my tv with component cables. What is the heart I am currently getting?
Well the NATIVE RESOLUTION of most Standard Definition TVs is 480 lines.
That's all you get from those....
NTSC is 525 lines. That is 525-wrinkle/60 Hz (480i, principally North American/Central American/Japanese) "NTSC" system and 625-moonshine/50 Hz (576i, principally European) television system.
A DVD has a resolution of 720×480 (NTSC) or 720×576 (PAL).
So if you are in North America it is 720x480 with a standard TV.
Newstoy poodle tail docking breed standard definition tv tuner
Stomachache Due To The Sincere Belief That The Rest Of My Band Is Trying To Kill Me .mp3 Download Rumah Sakit
monoloQue-Sakit Rumah(versi Rosak) homemade tape of monoloQue-Sakit Rumah (versi Rosak) EP 1: jgn puja sampai Kecewa. direckted by:tan cheng loQue produced by LoKmanne.
"Pennies fron Heaven" George Masso with Lino Patruno GEORGE MASSO (trombone) with LINO PATRUNO (guitar), CARLO BAGNOLI (baritone), SANTE PALUMBO (piano), LUCIANO MILANESE (bass), GIANCARLO PILLOT ...
I am not referring to unalike gene variants, or alleles, but a situation where one gene is on the chromosome of the father but not on the corresponding one for the mother. Say you have AA on the father but 00 (nothing) on the mother is the calculation for the offspring: A0,A0,A0,A0 = 0 ? What happens in that situation? Does the father's gene get passed onto the offspring? EDIT: Afraid I am not making this clear. The mother has NO genes or alleles that correspond with the father's one in question. What I mean by A0 is A x ZERO.
It will, but it won't be shown in the posterity. Like, if AA is blond hair (Dominant) , and oo is Brown hair (Recessive), all the offspring will have Blond trifle, but they will carry the brown hair gene, which, if they marry a brown haired girl, there is no chance the offspring will have blond ringlets. I think.
Depends on which is recesive and which is active.
All the offspring will be A0. The father's gene is passed on. Depending on the significance of the gene, individuals may be prepared to live without a copy. If the gene is deleterious (for example, the target of a toxin in a food source), individuals without the gene may fare improve. A notable condition in which this occurs is О±-thalassemia. There normal human genome has two tandem copies of the О±-globin chain of hemoglobin, or four copies, total number. There are variant chromosomes with one or zero copies. The null allele is usually indicated with a dash. Gene Ammons music
Electrolux suicide ad Forthcoming to you live from Hong Kong! A man is miraculously saved by the amazing sucking powers of the new Electrolux vacuum cleaner!
The Beatles (Album Covers) Music Poster Publish - 24" X 36" Adam Hersh Posters
When did Revolvers stop being Cap and Ball?
I was watching a documentary on the Wild West and they were speech about Revolvers. Formerly revolvers had to be loaded with gunpowder then a bullet was placed in the chamber. What I want to know is when that was no longer needed and the bullets could be brimming in without gunpowder. If's its confusing i'll add details.
the late 1800's was when there started to be more self contained type rounds near about.
Smith and Wesson had an 1854 patent on the 22 rimfire cartridge. They couldn't make a revolver to shoot it in because Colt had the patent on the idly rotating cylinder, which didn't expire until 1857. But they (Smith) did pick up the Rollin White patent for the bored-through roller. Until that expired, in 1869, Colt couldn't make a revolver that fired cartridges. So everybody was stuck through the Civil War span waiting for patents to expire. Of course, by 1870, there were tons of cap-and-ball revolvers lying about. So gunsmiths had a pretty sake business in the early 1870's converting cap-and-ball revolvers by Colt, Remington, et. al. to shoot metallic cartridges. As you might surmise, not everybody felt the conversion was worth it, and many during the depression of the time couldn't afford to convert even if they wanted, so the vicissitude was not immediate and universal.
I think the term you are looking for is 'metallic cartridge' where a brass case containing the explosive, lead ball, and primer is inserted right into the chamber of the gun.
The others are right, the first one of those was Smith and Wesson firing .22 rimfire cartridges, and there were some extraneous 'pinfire' cases a while back too.
But the pinfires weren't very popular, and the .22 was pretty weak, and a lot of the very first designs were pretty wierd (wallow the volcanic pistol)
The metallic cartridge in a serious full sized 'normal' revolver really only caught on a little bit after the Civil war.
The 'prototypical' cowboy gun is the 1873 Colt Single Action Revolver, aka the Peacemaker aka Colt 45, and it is named for it's year of introduction.
Smith and Wesson made the first successful rimfire cartridge the 22 short back in 1855 for their First Model revolver. During the Civil War numerous types of persona contained cartridges were patented including the famous Henry 44 Flat rimfire. Winchester took over the Henry and ripe the Model 1866 Winchester and again chambered it for this rimfire round. Colt also experimented with chambering their Civil War 44, 36 and 31 caliber percussion revolvers into a wealthy metallic cartridge system up until 1871 when they developed the Model 1871 Open Top 44 Rimfire Model. But the big convert came when Colt came out with the centerfire model of 1872 Single Action Army Revolver in a variety of calibers most notibly 45 Colt and 44-40. Wichester also ripe a Model 1873 Rifle in 44-40 ceneterfire. The US Goverment also developed the Model 1873 Springfield in 45-70 Gov't shell.
When did revolvers stop being cap and ball? Quick answer: Never. Ball n cap revolvers are still ball n cap revolvers. What happened is that 'fixed-cartridges' (self-impassive metallic cased bullets) came along around 1865. Some old ball & cap revolvers were even converted to fire the new fixed or metallic cartridges and so the old shot & cap revolver was slowly phased out around the end of the Civil War, 1865.
If you are interested in modern ball n cap revolvers check by your nearest Cabella's sporting merchandise store. Cabella's carries an impressive list of ball n cap revolvers in their catalogue.
H
The transition began in the 1850's, by 1870's most pistols were no longer a cap distinct from the powder charge. The percussion cap was included in a cartridge that was more reliable and much faster to load in a weapon.
I believe it was around 1870
The first shell revolver was by Smith & Wesson in the 1850's. In the years that followed, many cap-and ball revolvers were converted to fire cartridges. The transition was complete with the preface of the Smith & Wesson American in 1869 and the Colt Single action Army in 1873.
Toyota Tundra Ordeal Drive by TRUCKS! From an old episode hosted by Stacey David from the show Trucks! from the Spike channel Stacy Test Drives a 1st Gen White access cab 4x4 SR5 carton.
What are the differences between the Harley Davidson Sportster and the Harley Davidson Dyna?
Expectant through the Harley Davidson catalog of motorcycles I can't figure out what the specific differences are between the Dyna and the Sportster such that the Dyna costs about $6000 more. What do you get for this further $6000? Also, is the Sportster really just "a Woman's bike"? Are men who ride them mocked by other Harley owners?
You are in fate. I just traded in my XL1200C for an FXDWG. Well, the DWG is a dog compared to XL. Slow off the line, and harder to make her go where you want her to go. BUT! That TC-88 car makes for a big difference if you have a passenger. It just pulls like a train. Weight, what weight? Torque bend is huge. Not HP with this baby, but torque. I'm in fifth gear at 40 MPH. And she happpily goes lumping along getting about 43 MPG. (The Dyna Low stinks. Not because it's a bad bike, but I got a 36" inseam. I can't solve mid controls.) I wanted the six speed when I traded, but the dealer had no forward control models. The Sporty is to get you "sea legs" for a bike, so to express. The XL1200 will really teach you that H-D don't make a Japanese style bike. You end up with very large calf on the right leg, and the radical arm will grow a big bulge just below the elbow. (I'm looking at mine now!) The Dyna also comes in what they call the "Dyna Wide". That is what I have now. Again, she's a bear to preside in first, but if you have experience with a heavy bike, it will just come to you. I've had many bikes. I love my FXDWG. If I could bring it inside the home, I would. Heck, If it could give birth. I would marry the 'Ol Girl! I did get rid of the Sporty since I was not considered a "real" rider with it. But I do miss the Sporty. It could rasp pegs in a turn. I won't dare lean over the 'Ol Girl any more than I need to.
maybe women like the older sportsters because the viberate...lol...althought the new ones dont....they also have an motor transmission combination, where as other Harley's use a separate engine and transmission,...
As far as the differences im not sure.
But a sportster was marketed as a womans bike, thus men riding them are frowned apon. Lyric preference I guess.
They were marketed as a womans bike because of the comfort factor, and lower CC's then the "man" bikes.
The sportsters as before mentioned are a minor configuration with a one piece case. that extra 6 grand will get you more weight, more power, and more re-sale value by far.
The dyno is a lot better, both size and displacment. The sportster came in a 1100cc though, so that is pretty big to be considered just a womans bike. I theorize thats just personal opinion.
I've owned both, they are both great bikes. I've had four Sportsters and 9 other HD bikes over fifty age. The Sportster has a smaller engine and is not a woman's bike. The Dyna series has extra gas in the frame and the oil bag is in the gas tank. Dyna is much more well off and lower to the ground. The difference is in the performance, if you get the Dyna you will know where the 6K went to. I have an 06 Ultra Classic and have NEVER mocker another bike proprietor. I never even mock the jap bike owners, we're all bikers. The only thing I didn't like about the Dyna (Street Bob) were the handlebars which can be replaced. Journey on Brother.
The Sportster is a smaller lighter bike with a smaller motor,(883) or (1200) The motor, basic drive and trans are all a shared unit. The Dyna is a "Big Twin" 80" (1340) or an 88" for newer models.The car is a unit, the primary drive is a unit and the trans is a unit. The Dyna is a longer ,bigger and heavier bike than the swanky. Sportsters are ( usually) a first Harley, a stepping stone to a big twin. Some never out grow them but most do. My old lady rode her 1200 for a year or so,then we got her a FXR which is like( But superior ) to the Dyna. These days I see many chicks on big bikes so as a woman you may start on a Sportster and graduate to a Big Twin unprejudiced like the boys do. And yes guys who ride Sporties from time to time will get some grief for it.
As one other person on here says.
Their are two Sporster models, 883, 1200.
The New 2006 Dyna Flow has 5gal. tank, 88B motor or 1430cc engine. The 2007 Dyna Glide has the new 96 cu. inch motor.
The frame and tires and ride are totally different on the dyna, because of weight of the bike. Also a Sportster is more of a runabout category bike, even though people do take them on long trips as well.
Sportsters engine & transmission are a unit, one peice if you will, all the others have a seperate carrying,
The Dyna does NOT have the 88B (counterbalanced) engine. It also does not have extra gas in the frame and does not have the oil tank in the gas tank. The 88B is in the Softail bikes, well, 96 crawl now. The Dyna has a lower seat height than the XL too, except for the 883L. Some big twin riders will razz a guy on a XL, but not after following an XL through some twisty roads. For wish distance comfort, or a bike with a lower center of gravity, the FX line is superior to the XL. A Sportster is definitely not conscientious a "ladies bike" though. Some of the fastest Harleys around are Sportsters that have been hopped up to 88 cubic inches.
Ride On knows what he is speech about,Seems like he always has the good ones.
Ok first lemme tell you that my Sporty is the fastest bike in my garage and there are four bikes in there. I have a Casual, Dyna, Buell S-2 and a Buell Blast. Well 5 but my second Sporty isn't put together yet!!! The Sporty doesn't get the respect it should but they boulder!!! They kick some serious ass if you know what I mean. They aren't just for women...they never have been. They are the "sport" version of the big twin Harley's. I didn't see any corps racing them way back when Harley got into racing did you??? The differences are that the Sporty has a smaller motor selection...they come in 883CC or 1200CC. The Dyna's coincide with a bigger motor...mine is 1640CC but the new ones are bigger. Both bikes have rubber mounted motors so the rider doesn't get the Hades beat out of them. They both have real suspension unlike the softail line. The Dyna costs more simply because the bike has a much major motor (that is your special difference) and they come with different front ends. The wide glide Dyna has the widest front end of that social. Just remember that Sporty's are for anyone who wants to tear it up!!!! Most of them were way to tall for girls until this year when they came out with the Low. That disqualifies them as a "girls bike" wouldn't you say? The Dyna is about 113 pounds heavier dry than the Trendy. Happy Hunting!!!
Yesterday, I asked a question in response to a question asked by an Heathen talking about human "gill slits"..
I was chided because of the age of the sourde it was 1977 or something like that...I deleted the question. this is the updated style.
This is an excerpt from an article written by Dr. Tommy Mitchell and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell
March 14, 2007
...Like Darwin, Haeckel alleged that the developmental stages of an embryo retrace its evolutionary past. In other words, the human embryo supposedly goes through a fish dramatic, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on. Countless students have therefore been taught, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” Confirm for this notion came, not from scientific research and observation, but solely from Haeckel’s own diagrams.
Ernst Haeckel was a scholar of zoology in Germany from 1865 until 1909. In 1868, he fabricated the embryologic evidence for evolution by fraudulently production the diagrams to “prove” the theory. Reputable German scientists immediately began refuting his express, demonstrating that Haeckel had falsified his pictures. Notwithstanding, these diagrams have been taught in biology textbooks at the high denomination and university levels as recently as the 1990s and the idea they purport to prove is still presented in textbooks today,
The so-called canyon slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary tier. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the programme naturally of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is altogether supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.
So what are these misnamed structures? Absolutely, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo’s throat. By the 28th day of life, the embryo’s brain and spinal cord seem to be racing to the fore of the rest of the body in growth. Therefore, for a time, the spinal cord is actually longer than the body, forcing the camp to curl and flexing the neck area forward. (This curled embryo with the long spinal cord is unawares accused by some people of having a tail.) Just as many people develop a double chin when bending the kiss forward, so the embryo has folds in its neck area due to this flexing.
We scientists especially like to name things. Canyon slits is a misleading name, since these folds are neither gills nor slits. Another popular name, branchial arches, is just as deceptive because branchial comes from the Classical word for “gills.” Somehow the name neck folds just isn’t fancy enough for our scientific minds, so these folds are called pharyngeal arches, since they are sly-shaped folds near the throat. (Pharyngeal is the scientific word for things having to do with the throat. When you say you have a ulcer throat, your doctor says you have pharyngitis.) The creases between the folds are called pharyngeal clefts, and the undersides of the folds are called pharyngeal pouches.
One warrant for assigning names to all these parts is the fact that each fold shapes itself into specific structures, none of which are ever used for breathing. The external and middle ear as well as the bones, muscles, nerves, and glands of the neck develop from these folds. Only superficially do these important folds ever be like gills; the pharyngeal arches are no more related to gills than stars are to streetlights. This is the question that I am referencing....
Your assertion that Haeckel fudged his drawings does not rule out the facts. The human pharyngeal pouches and arches correlate with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th equivalents in the jawless fishes (lampreys and hagfish). The structures that become canyon slits and corresponding arches also become other structures (like the arch of the aorta).
As the lungs developed from the swim bladder which is an outpouching of the esophagus. The convert from gills to lungs for respiration explains how the gill slits do not play a role in respiration. Frogs unfold gills from the pharyngeal pouches as tadpoles, and then lungs as an an adult frog.
Haeckel's inaccuracies do not invalidate embryology. Humans bring out from the same structures as other vertebrates. The "gill slits" do not produce gill tissue, but they produce many of the same structures.
1977 or 2007, it doesn't issue. they are still banging on about haeckel, whose recapitulation hypothesis was discarded about a century ago. pharyngeal arches are homologous with structures in fish and many other vertebrates, because those breed evolved from a common ancestor. semantic games do not change that, and the mention of haeckel's discredited theories is a scientifically inapplicable attempt at establishing guilt by association.
Why is it that religious people say "Aha! You're wrong and I've got the science to prove it!" when it suits their pleading, but refuse to even consider the validity of the science in any athiest's argument? Is that not just a bit hypocritical?
Hey .... where is the part where you said Haeckel was Darwin follower?
The answer will be the same as yesterday. The one you deleted. Look it up.
I was aware of this, but not from college. Of course, I am fifty eight, and the degree grows dustier by the imperceptible. I detest, but I understand why drug companies will lie to cover up side effects of drugs in order to protect that almighty dollar. What has been charmed in this cover up? The so called scientist is dead, but some educated people have been duped into defending an egotistical liar. I speculation the theory was the "opiate of the masses," another term thrown at any people with faith in a Creator. I am not going to debate whether the Ground is sixty billion years old, or the unlikely six thousand years old, but the age of the Earth does not change my faith. They had to cling to the rip-off in the face of reason. Who needs the "opiate?" I appreciate the link and the person's willingness to accept a scientific phenomenon, but he would have seemed a little more noble had he not thrown in the haughty remark that still showed his elitist attitude. Thank you for a wonderful stake.
Your right.
All you are demonstrating here is the atrociously bad quality of education. Haeckel has been discredited for almost a hundred years. His theories on evolution are no longer taught, much less discussed in biology. To bad nobody meditating fit to update the text books.
Haeckel is only cited by Creationists now, and then only as an attack on evolutionary theory based in inexperience of the man and his failed Lamarkian concepts. Although he accepted Darwin's ideas about evolution Haeckel was never able to get past his evangelical Christian credit. As a result he believed in the ladder concept of evolution where the organisms ranked in a strict order from lowest to uppermost. With man of course occupying the top of the ladder. After all, man was Gods highest achievement, how could it be otherwise. These religion inspired views of evolution are not what Darwin had presented at all. Radical selection in Darwin's view was not God shaping humans or a purposeful shaping of animals.
Haeckel's views were democratic in his lifetime and were supported by the Churches over the strict Darwinian view. It was evolution as selected by religion. He was also highly prosperous by the believers in positive eugenics.
He was an intelligent man but he was trapped by his religious beliefs that made him, in the end unable to escape certain creationist concepts about mans insert in the animal world.
No contemporary biologist teaches "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The Mitchells are either deliberately mendacious, or majorly out of touch with current - ie the last hundred years' - biological thinking. Haeckel's theories have not been taken openly in their absolute form for over a century. Here's the original article from that paragon of peer reviewed science (not), Answers in Beginning: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0314gill-slits.asp
Apart from reposting this piece replete with the medium AiG straw men, do you have a point?
obviously you have never seen "Waterworld..."
you keep posting, and I'll keep reading...
HA!!! I KNEW IT WASN'T Self-evident!!!! What a BUNCH of gobbledygook we are taught in biology, then they always have this stupid disclaimer: "The human body is SO complicate we don't really know everything there is to know about it."
That whole "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" crap was repugnant to me. I kept my incredulous hat on THAT day, I'm SO glad you posted this. They should recant the text and revise their material.
This was taken from talkorigins.org. You are correct we do not ever have gill slits but the pharyngeal pouches that the condition describe are still more proof of evolution.
Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they upon into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. There is no way canyon slits can serve as evidence for evolution.
Source:
Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Mutation, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 105-107.
Response:
The pharyngeal pouches that appear in embryos technically are not canyon slits, but that is irrelevant. The reason they are evidence for evolution is that the same structure, whatever you call it, appears in all vertebrate embryos. Agassiz (not a Darwinist himself) oral, "The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills dissolve and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence" (Agassiz 1874).
Darwinian evolution predicts, among other furniture, similar (not identical) structures in related organisms. That pharyngeal pouches in humans are similar to pharyngeal pouches (or whatever you call them) in fish is one pistol of evidence that humans and fish share a common ancestor. References: Agassiz, Louis, 1874. Mutation and Permanence of Type, reprinted in Hull, David L., 1973, Darwin and His Critics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard School Press, p. 440. Further Reading: Gilbert, Scott F., 1988. Developmental Biology, 2nd ed. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates
Prepare-You failed to cite your source. answersingenesis is not at all a decent or remotely valid site for science and definately not biology.
There is a whole lot of copy here.. but .. I can't see a question. Is there a question? I mean.. the trolls are sure gonna love you for this one! You gots to ask a question! .. occasion this is Yahoo ANSWERS.. and if you ask a quesiton you get ANSWERS.. but if you make a statement ... which I think you just did.... then all you get is reported!
Appreciate your gill slits!
Newseric gagne mitchell report excerpts by marilyn sachs
Fisher - Good-looking life (From "The lovely years" CD) As early explorers of the MP3.com landscape, Fisher became the first band signed to a major label agreement on the basis of the strength of it's ...
What is the email address to fisher price Corporate?
My son (19 months) was recently sick and destoryed (Puked and pooped) on his Hindrance Up Elmo (His favorite toy). I called fisher price's hotline about it but they could not care less that they sell a baby toy that can not be washed without destorying it. Gratuitous to say I am not going to keep a toy that is covered in bad stuff. And typically I can wash all of his toys, but this one you need to destory to get the battery pack off of to rinse it. So he now has a non-functional Elmo toy. I was hoping maybe they could cut me a deal/break since they did not have the foresight to make a washable toy. I have been to both http://www.fisher-price.com/us/non-performance.asp, and www.service.mattel.com and did not find an email address.
I found this one too....don't know if this will help, but I hope it does. www.service.mattel.com. it was found on the fisher price website.
http://www.fisher-price.com/us/neglect.asp here hope this helps
Newsfisher price peek-a-blocks christmas train wrecks documentary spike tv
Anyone ever had a bosch hoover and had nothing but trouble with it. This is the second replacement and the lead don't go back in,the handle broke off when picked up and you have to keep cleaning the membrane strain to get suction from it. This model is bosch bx32197gb.