It depends ......
You'll need one civil engineer for every bucket of dirt they carry off and you must hire a social worker at least to keep track of how many buckets the civils have carted off.
So it take a civil engunear for every bucket of dirt.
You NEVER asked that question anywhere. Your question did not specify where the train was. Why do you lie constantly
Out west towards the foothills of the Rockies farmer Brown’s son suffers a severe laceration in a farm injury. Farmer Brown grabs a mattress from his house, puts his son in the bed of his truck on the mattress then he and Mrs. Brown pile into the front and race towards the hospital. Due to the nature of the cut they are not able to stop the bleeding, only slow the blood loss so time is of the essence.
As Farmer Brown approaches the only RR crossing for 200 miles fate has it a cross the broad open expanse of the Prairie he sees the “Western Flyover Express” is also approaching. Both Farmer Brown and the train are doing 80 mph. The train is a freight and although the engine goes through the intersection at full speed, it is approaching a grade and a bend in the tracks so it immediately begins slowing. The train is 1.5 miles long and will be going only 8 mph when it clears the crossing (assume the speed decline is constant). They are 15 miles from the hospital. It has been 20 minutes since the accident, initial blood loss was 500 ml and bleeding has been 10 ml/minute since, if a liter is lost there is a danger of shock
Farmer Brown’s truck maxes out at 85MPH and he wasn’t pushing that because of his concern for fuel because his gauge reads near empty.
Should farmer Brown try to beat the train to the crossing?
Can't say unless you know where the train is.
Somebody help hawfckwad understand.
Is there a psychiatrist on the board who can translate what this idiot is thinking and why.
And also why is it that he can be so oblivious to his own nonsense.
Where is it stated that the truck needs to race the train ??
That bit of information is not in the post, your type one thinking ( emotional ) leads you to leave out details that are just 'gut' feelings.
How is this inform at all of the relative locations of train and truck. Now really who is it than cannot write or think logically.
Just because you KNOW in your widdle head what you are thinking does not mean the stick figures you see in the real world also know.
Actually given the injured son HE SHOULD try to beat the train to the crossing if he can do so safely. The only situation where he would refrain is if his max safe speed does not get him there while the crossing is unoccupied and to know this one needs much more info.
There is only one angle possible. I was thinking the real result could be negative or positive giving two angles in the complex plane. But the real part would always be positive so i goofed that one.
Cue Hawfaeces to post some inane drivel.
Nobody but the village idiot would compare the threats posed by Iraq and Germany in their respective time periods prior to war.
Iraq was ,
much much less armed and trained,
fighting battles in their own country,
had a divided population.
no capacity at all to wage war on another land.
Unified in purpose
Much closer to the US
Had allies with significant military strength.
Committed to a conventional war.
Committed to capturing and occupying foreign land.
No the truth is that the right wing has nothing on the middle east wars as far as benefit so they have decided to look straight into the camera and peddle this nonsense comparison in order to save face at any cost no matter how ridiculous.
""Would stopping Hitler in 1932 been a good idea, idiot?""
Maybe , you can't really claim so. Likely another would have taken his place. Another might not have made his mistakes.
Germany was at the right place to be let into a world war psychologically and there would have been many.
Maybe the next one would not have postponed work on nuclear weapons and we would all be speaking German now.
We have not reduced our likelihood of a domestic nuke attack one bit since our activities in the middle east. Likely increased it.
How could control of fossil fuels threaten us militarily. And was this a valid reason to wage a war of aggression.
in the same thread hawfaeces links this with Saddams control of fossil fuel.
Right, Germany was never a threat to mainland U.S., in the nuclear age and with control of fossil fuels Saddam could have been.
Hawfaeces don't you know discussing the middle east wars and fossil fuel is the conservative third rail. They will string you up by your depends if you link these two up again.
I have to ask. Does a country that tries to control all the oil deserve to be attacked preemptively to stop them.