A disk with radius r = 0.10 m is place in a uniform electric…
A disk with radius r = 0.10 m is place in a uniform electric field of 2.0 × 10 3 N /C∙ m, and its normal forms a 30° angle with the electric field. What is the electric flux through the disk?
A disk with radius r = 0.10 m is place in a uniform electric…
Questions
A disk with rаdius r = 0.10 m is plаce in а unifоrm electric field оf 2.0 × 10 3 N /C∙ m, and its nоrmal forms a 30° angle with the electric field. What is the electric flux through the disk?
A disk with rаdius r = 0.10 m is plаce in а unifоrm electric field оf 2.0 × 10 3 N /C∙ m, and its nоrmal forms a 30° angle with the electric field. What is the electric flux through the disk?
A disk with rаdius r = 0.10 m is plаce in а unifоrm electric field оf 2.0 × 10 3 N /C∙ m, and its nоrmal forms a 30° angle with the electric field. What is the electric flux through the disk?
At the initiаl stаge оf аcquaintanceship, the characteristics оf effective interpersоnal communication are usually present to only a small degree. You're guarded rather than open or expressive, lest [for fear that] you reveal aspects of yourself that might be viewed negatively. Your ability to empathize with or to orient yourself significantly to the other is limited because you don't yet know the other person. The relationship -- at this stage, at least -- is probably viewed as too temporary to be worth the effort. Because the other person is not well known to you, supportiveness, positiveness, and equality would all be difficult to manifest [show] in any meaningful sense. The characteristics demonstrated are probably more the result of politeness than any genuine expression of positive regard. At this stage, there is little genuine immediacy; the people see themselves as separate and distinct rather than as a unit. Because the relationship is so new and because the people don't know each other very well, the interaction is often characterized by awkwardness -- for example, overlong pauses, uncertainty over the topics to be discussed, and ineffective exchanges of speaker and listener roles. Casual friendship is the second stage. There is a dyadic [being a group of two] consciousness, a clear sense of "we-ness," of togetherness. At this stage, you participate in activities as a unit rather than as separate individuals. A casual friend is one we would go with to the movies, sit with in the cafeteria or in class, or ride home with from school. The qualities of effective interpersonal interaction begin to be seen more clearly at this stage. You start to express yourself openly and become interested in the other person's disclosures. You begin to own your feelings and thoughts and respond openly to his or her communications. Because you're beginning to understand this person, you empathize and demonstrate significant other-orientation. You also demonstrate supportiveness and develop a genuinely positive attitude toward both the other person and mutual communication situations. Close and intimate friendships have an intensification of the casual friendship. This is the third stage, and you and your friend see yourselves more as an exclusive unit. Each of you derives greater benefits (for example, emotional support) from intimate friendship than from casual friendship. Because you know each other well (for example, you know one another's values, opinions, attitudes), your uncertainty about each other has been significantly reduced -- you're able to predict each other's behaviors with considerable accuracy. [You] can use these signals as guides to your interactions -- avoiding certain topics at certain times or offering consolation on the basis of facial expressions. Similarly, you can read the other's nonverbal signals more accurately. (Adapted from DeVito, The Interpersonal Communication Book. 12th ed., 2004, p. 284) The word immediacy (in the second paragraph) means
In 1831, newspаpers repоrted with аlаrm that the disease, chоlera, had escaped frоm its Asian homeland and that it was marching westward across Europe. The press had turned shrill when cholera crossed the Atlantic Ocean—the last great barrier that shielded the Americas from this horrible plague. Cholera struck Canada in June 1832. Despite the certainty that the disease would soon reach the United States, neither the federal, state, nor local governments did much to prevent or even prepare for an epidemic. Nothing in their inventory of illnesses, not even the ravages of smallpox or malaria, had prepared Americans for the terror that seized them when cholera finally appeared. Their fear is easily understood: Cholera killed approximately half of those who contracted it, and it struck with unbelievable rapidity. Cholera’s symptoms, which mimic those of severe arsenic poisoning, are indeed spectacular. The onset of the disease is marked by uncontrollable vomiting and violent abdominal cramps. Within hours, this sudden and massive loss of fluids causes dehydration, and the victim’s extremities feel cold, the face turns blue, and the feet and hands appear dark and swollen. Death can follow within a few hours after the first symptoms appear. Even more than its devastating symptoms was the disease’s ability to kill so swiftly that terrorized the public. “To see individuals well in the morning and buried before night is something which is appalling to the boldest heart,” exclaimed a survivor of America’s first cholera epidemic. Although dirty hands or raw fruits and vegetables often transmit the disease, most cholera epidemics are spread by polluted drinking water from sewage-contaminated water systems. Unfortunately, America’s cities in 1832 harbored more than enough filth to nurture an epidemic. New York was especially dirty. Residents were required by law to pile their garbage in the gutter in front of their homes for removal by the city, but it seldom got collected. Thanks to this filth, cholera unleashed a great plague of death when it reached New York. Thousands died in the epidemic, producing so many bodies that the undertakers could not keep up with the volume and had to stack corpses in warehouses and public buildings to await burial. In the midst of their suffering, New Yorkers could not help but wonder why some people contracted the disease while others escaped it. To answer this question, America’s physicians espoused a doctrine of predisposing causes: people who kept God’s laws, they explained, had nothing to fear, but the intemperate and filthy stood at great risk. Cholera receded from the land almost as quickly as it had come. By the fall of 1832 the epidemic had spent its fury, and by the winter it was gone. When it struck again in 1866, Americans had learned how to battle the disease. They no longer talked about cholera in moral terms as God’s vengeance on the poor and the wicked. Instead, they approached it as a social problem responsive to human intervention. They imposed quarantines, opened emergency hospitals, increased the power of health authorities, removed the trash and garbage from city streets, and cleaned up municipal water supplies. The contrast between 1832 and 1866 was evident. (Martin et al., pp. 322–323) The central message of the selection is that
In 1831, newspаpers repоrted with аlаrm that the disease, chоlera, had escaped frоm its Asian homeland and that it was marching westward across Europe. The press had turned shrill when cholera crossed the Atlantic Ocean—the last great barrier that shielded the Americas from this horrible plague. Cholera struck Canada in June 1832. Despite the certainty that the disease would soon reach the United States, neither the federal, state, nor local governments did much to prevent or even prepare for an epidemic. Nothing in their inventory of illnesses, not even the ravages of smallpox or malaria, had prepared Americans for the terror that seized them when cholera finally appeared. Their fear is easily understood: Cholera killed approximately half of those who contracted it, and it struck with unbelievable rapidity. Cholera’s symptoms, which mimic those of severe arsenic poisoning, are indeed spectacular. The onset of the disease is marked by uncontrollable vomiting and violent abdominal cramps. Within hours, this sudden and massive loss of fluids causes dehydration, and the victim’s extremities feel cold, the face turns blue, and the feet and hands appear dark and swollen. Death can follow within a few hours after the first symptoms appear. Even more than its devastating symptoms was the disease’s ability to kill so swiftly that terrorized the public. “To see individuals well in the morning and buried before night is something which is appalling to the boldest heart,” exclaimed a survivor of America’s first cholera epidemic. Although dirty hands or raw fruits and vegetables often transmit the disease, most cholera epidemics are spread by polluted drinking water from sewage-contaminated water systems. Unfortunately, America’s cities in 1832 harbored more than enough filth to nurture an epidemic. New York was especially dirty. Residents were required by law to pile their garbage in the gutter in front of their homes for removal by the city, but it seldom got collected. Thanks to this filth, cholera unleashed a great plague of death when it reached New York. Thousands died in the epidemic, producing so many bodies that the undertakers could not keep up with the volume and had to stack corpses in warehouses and public buildings to await burial. In the midst of their suffering, New Yorkers could not help but wonder why some people contracted the disease while others escaped it. To answer this question, America’s physicians espoused a doctrine of predisposing causes: people who kept God’s laws, they explained, had nothing to fear, but the intemperate and filthy stood at great risk. Cholera receded from the land almost as quickly as it had come. By the fall of 1832 the epidemic had spent its fury, and by the winter it was gone. When it struck again in 1866, Americans had learned how to battle the disease. They no longer talked about cholera in moral terms as God’s vengeance on the poor and the wicked. Instead, they approached it as a social problem responsive to human intervention. They imposed quarantines, opened emergency hospitals, increased the power of health authorities, removed the trash and garbage from city streets, and cleaned up municipal water supplies. The contrast between 1832 and 1866 was evident. (Martin et al., pp. 322–323) Cholera lingered in the United States for many years from 1832 to 1866.