In his lectures on experimental calorimetry from 1819 to 1824, Nicolas Clément was the first to use the word "calorie" to describe a unit of heat energy. The "big" calorie was this one. Between 1841 and 1867, the word (with a lowercase "c") was included in the French and English dictionaries. Its origins are in Latin and mean "hot."
Calories are a measure of energy.
[1][2] Two primary meanings of "calorie" are frequently used due to historical factors. The amount of heat required to increase the temperature of one kilogramme of water by one degree Celsius was the original definition of the big calorie, food calorie, or kilogramme calorie (or one kelvin). The amount of heat required to produce the same rise in one gramme of water was known as the tiny calorie or gramme calorie. As a result, 1000 little calories are equal to 1 large calorie.
The term "calorie" and the symbol "cal" usually generally refer to the big unit in nutrition and food research. The energy value of foods is often expressed in publications and on food packaging as well as recommended dietary caloric intake, metabolic rates, etc. To prevent misunderstanding, some publications advise using the capital C-spelled terms Calorie and Cal, respectively;[8] however, this norm is frequently disregarded.
To learn more about calories visit;
brainly.com/question/10075900
#SPJ4
The correct answer to this is the:
“minority populations”
For example in America, white Americans are the racial
majority while African Americans and Latinos are the minority. Despite
improvement in overall health for the majority of the people, the burden of
health disparities always affect the minority populations. The slight difference in race gives a very large advantage to white Americans in terms of health benefits, insurance and health facilities available.
The right to bear arms falls under the second amendment of the constitution
Let's solve your equation step-by-step.<span><span><span>5x</span>+3</span>=<span><span>2x</span>−9</span></span>Step 1: Subtract 2x from both sides.<span><span><span><span>5x</span>+3</span>−<span>2x</span></span>=<span><span><span>2x</span>−9</span>−<span>2x</span></span></span><span><span><span>3x</span>+3</span>=<span>−9</span></span>Step 2: Subtract 3 from both sides.<span><span><span><span>3x</span>+3</span>−3</span>=<span><span>−9</span>−3</span></span><span><span>3x</span>=<span>−12</span></span>Step 3: Divide both sides by 3.<span><span><span>3x</span>3</span>=<span><span>−12</span>3</span></span><span>x=<span>−4</span></span>Answer:<span>x=<span>−<span>4</span></span></span>
Bolivar stood apart from his class in ideas, values and vision. Who else would be found in the midst of a campaign swinging in a hammock, reading the French philosophers? His liberal education, wide reading, and travels in Europe had broadened his horizons and opened his mind to the political thinkers of France and Britain. He read deeply in the works of Hobbes and Spinoza, Holbach and Hume; and the thought of Montesquieu and Rousseau left its imprint firmly on him and gave him a life-long devotion to reason, freedom and progress. But he was not a slave of the Enlightenment. British political virtues also attracted him. In his Angostura Address (1819) he recommended the British constitution as 'the most worthy to serve as a model for those who desire to enjoy the rights of man and all political happiness compatible with our fragile nature'. But he also affirmed his conviction that American constitutions must conform to American traditions, beliefs and conditions.
His basic aim was liberty, which he described as "the only object worth the sacrifice of man's life'. For Bolivar liberty did not simply mean freedom from the absolutist state of the eighteenth century, as it did for the Enlightenment, but freedom from a colonial power, to be followed by true independence under a liberal constitution. And with liberty he wanted equality – that is, legal equality – for all men, whatever their class, creed or colour. In principle he was a democrat and he believed that governments should be responsible to the people. 'Only the majority is sovereign', he wrote; 'he who takes the place of the people is a tyrant and his power is usurpation'. But Bolivar was not so idealistic as to imagine that South America was ready for pure democracy, or that the law could annul the inequalities imposed by nature and society. He spent his whole political life developing and modifying his principles, seeking the elusive mean between democracy and authority. In Bolivar the realist and idealist dwelt in uneasy rivalry.