Question: In fact, Whitehead describes any entity as in some sense nothing more and nothing less than the sum of its relations to other entities – its synthesis of and reaction to the world around it. A real thing is just that which forces the rest of the universe to in some way conform to it; that is to say, if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist. Relations are not secondary to what a thing is, they are what the thing is.
Try to answer this question if possible: In Whitehead's thinking, what could be said about something that has no effect on any other person or object?
Answer: if theoretically a thing made strictly no difference to any other entity (i.e. it was not related to any other entity), it could not be said to really exist
Question: The IEEE 802.3af Power over Ethernet (PoE) standard specifies a more elaborate power negotiation scheme than powered USB. It operates at 48 V DC and can supply more power (up to 12.95 W, PoE+ 25.5 W) over a cable up to 100 meters compared to USB 2.0, which provides 2.5 W with a maximum cable length of 5 meters. This has made PoE popular for VoIP telephones, security cameras, wireless access points and other networked devices within buildings. However, USB is cheaper than PoE provided that the distance is short, and power demand is low.
Try to answer this question if possible: Is USB cheaper or more expensive than PoE?
Answer: cheaper
Question: The theoretical difficulties arise from the fact that all of the methods except the X-ray crystal density method rely on the theoretical basis of the Josephson effect and the quantum Hall effect. If these theories are slightly inaccurate – though there is no evidence at present to suggest they are – the methods would not give accurate values for the Planck constant. More importantly, the values of the Planck constant obtained in this way cannot be used as tests of the theories without falling into a circular argument. Fortunately, there are other statistical ways of testing the theories, and the theories have yet to be refuted.
Try to answer this question if possible: Why does relying on these effects create concern?
Answer: If these theories are slightly inaccurate
Question: A major consideration was the possible Soviet reaction in the event that the US intervened. The Truman administration was fretful that a war in Korea was a diversionary assault that would escalate to a general war in Europe once the United States committed in Korea. At the same time, "[t]here was no suggestion from anyone that the United Nations or the United States could back away from [the conflict]". Yugoslavia–a possible Soviet target because of the Tito-Stalin Split—was vital to the defense of Italy and Greece, and the country was first on the list of the National Security Council's post-North Korea invasion list of "chief danger spots". Truman believed if aggression went unchecked a chain reaction would be initiated that would marginalize the United Nations and encourage Communist aggression elsewhere. The UN Security Council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the US immediately began using what air and naval forces that were in the area to that end. The Administration still refrained from committing on the ground because some advisers believed the North Koreans could be stopped by air and naval power alone.
Try to answer this question if possible: What resources did the US devote to South Korea after the Security Council approved engaging in an armed conflict?
Answer:
air and naval forces