not sure if this helps but I hope it does
sorry its so long
To date erosion scientists have failed to address — or have addressed inadequately — some of the ‘big questions’ of our discipline. For example, where is erosion occurring? Why is it happening, and who is to blame? How serious is it? Who does it affect? What should be the response? Can we prevent it? What are the costs of erosion? Our inability or reluctance to answer such questions damages our credibility and is based on weaknesses in commonly-used approaches and the spatial and temporal scales at which much research is carried out. We have difficulty in the recognition, description and quantification of erosion, and limited information on the magnitude and frequency of events that cause erosion. In particular there has been a neglect of extreme events which are known to contribute substantially to total erosion. The inadequacy and frequent misuse of existing data leaves us open to the charge of exaggeration of the erosion problem (a la Lomborg).
Models need to be developed for many purposes and at many scales. Existing models have proved to be of limited value, in the real as opposed to the academic world, both because of problems with the reliability of their results, and difficulties (with associated costs) of acquiring suitable data. However, there are some positive signs: models are now being developed for purposes including addressing questions of off-site impacts and land-use policy. Cheap, reliable and technically simple methods of erosion assessment at the field scale are needed. At the global scale, an up-date of GLASOD based on a scientific approach is urgent so that we are at least able to identify erosion ‘hotspots’.
In terms of explanation of erosion, the greatest need is for a full recognition of the importance of socio-economic drivers. The accession of new countries to the EU with different economic and land-use histories emphasises this need. Too often we have left people, especially the farmers, out of the picture. Our approach could be characterised as ‘data-rich and people-poor’.
Answer: Because the janitor is aware of your plight, the first thing to consider is this being a trick to extort you or to waste your time. After considering it to be a trick, you still have to consider it to be true. This makes it a game of 50:50 chance ( that is equal chance to loss or win).
To approach this situation, you have to define an agreement with the janitor. The agreement should be "send me the chemistry master and I will pay you after I have written the exam to confirm it is actually a chemistry master or pay you 1/10 of your amount if it is not, to compensate your efforts". After sending this agreement, you should focused on your studies like you're not expecting a positive response from him.
Negotiation should not be involved in the agreement, as it will waste your time of studies.
Answer: India
Explanation:
Elizabethan period was one in history with so many religious and cultural differences from what is obtainable in today's world. Venice use to be one of the richest cities in the world.
With a vibrant economy. But, was known as a city with racist and bias toward other religions, faith or culture. only Catholic were allowed within Venice, Jews were turned back, in today's world one city or locals that might be equivalent is India with a population of over 1billion and about 80℅ being Indus, 8%percent Muslims and 2℅ Christians, India has had her own fair share of religious and cultural intolerance which has led to lost of life's an properties.
Newton’s Second Law uses the equation Fnet=ma.
This equation tells us that mass is inversely proportional to acceleration.
This means that as the mass of a object increases, the acceleration decreases and vice versa.
This equation also tells us that if either mass or acceleration increase, the Fnet of an object will increase because mass and acceleration are directly proportional to the Fnet.
Answer:
A) House members have less voters to appeal to so they are harder to defeat than Senators.
Explanation:
House members have less voters to appeal to so they are harder to defeat than Senators. House districts are an average of 750,000 people so House members can be more connected to their constituents compared to a Senator who represents and entire state.
