0
Who amongthe followingfour is the odd man out 1 Abanindranath Tagore 2. J S Swaminathan 3 Akbar Padamsee 4 Javed Ahhtar?
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
All others are painter, and of course the name Javed Akhtar is miss spelled in IB exam,2012.
Wiki User
∙ 10y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How can gathering and organizing information about ecosystems help you better understand the interactions amongthe different elements in an ecosystem?
The elements that make up an ecosystem function together. If one factor changes, this will cause another factor in the ecosystem to change.
Does a comet appear as a streak in the sky?
No. The 'tail' that you see in those beautiful comet photos gives the impressionof great, whooshing speed. But when you see a comet, you don't see it move.With even the ones that move fastest through the sky, you have to wait severalminutes before you can recognize that it's in a slightly different position amongthe stars that are near it.The stars in the sky rotate over your head faster than comets typically movethrough them.
If 5 circles weigh 10 pounds how much does square weigh?
If five circles weigh 10 pounds, then each 2 squares are going to weigh 25, because 10+10+10+10+10= 50 that was 5 tens. Then 2 square 50 ÷ 2= 25. So 25+25= 50. It took me 10 minutes to get that answer
Jose Rizal grand tour of Europe with viola in 1887?
Decision to return home. Because of the publication of the Noli Me Tangere and the uproar it caused amongthe friars. Rizal was warned by Paciano (his brother).Silvestre Ubaldo (his brother in-law), Chengoy (Jose M. Cecilio) and other friends not to return home. But he did notheed their warning. He was determined to return to the Philippines for the followingreason: 1) to operate his mother's eyes, 2) to serve his people who had long beenoppressed by Spanish tyrants; 3) to find out for him how the Noli and his otherwritings were affecting Filipinos & Spaniards in the Philippines; 4) to inquire whyLeonora Rivera remained silent.
What is the most dangerous tiger in the world?
This actually varies with people. It depends mainly on what a particular finds as dangerous. For example, say there's a snake lover. One person might think a snake is the most dangerous animal in the world. However, this snake lover won't. He might find something as small as a spider as dangerous.If this isn't really satisfactory, here's a list. This is not exactly accurate because people define "dangerous" in different ways.1Mosquito over 2 million deaths per year resulting from malaria infection caused by mosquito bites2Snake over 100,000 deaths per year3Scorpion up to 5,000 deaths per year.4Crocodile up to 2,000 deaths per year5Elephant over 600 deaths per year6Bee over 400 deaths per year7Lion over 250 deaths per year8Hippopotamus over 200 deaths per year9Jellyfish over 100 deaths per year10Shark 30 -100 deaths per yearOf course all animals are dangerous, they all have their own ways of defending. But really the most dangeorus animal on earth is the HUMAN.
What is mass divided by weight?
Answer #1:It's (1) divided by (the acceleration of gravity in the place where that mass hasthat weight):weight = mass x g (where g is the acceleration due to gravity)⇒ mass/weight = mass/(mass x g)= 1/gOn the earth, g ≈ 9.81 ms-2 ⇒ mass/weight ≈ 1/9.81 ms-2 ≈ 0.102 m-1s2On the moon, g is approx 1/6 that of the earth, ⇒ mass/weight ≈ 6/9.81 ms-2 ≈ 0.612 m-1s2If the questioner really meant weight divided by mass it gives the accelerationdue to gravity in that place otherwise I'm not sure of a use of knowing thereciprocal of the acceleration due to gravity that the questioner asked.=============================Answer #2:If you ask a scientist, that's true answer in the sense that a mass M experiencesa gravitational force Mg and if you measure weight in units of force (whichnobody does). But anyone else would be surprised to learn that a mass M (say10 grams) would have a weight of anything else but M grams (10 grams).Sometimes expressed as "grams weight" often just grams for short. If you pickup a Kilogram, even a scientist would say "its weight is 1 kilogram". Thegravitational force on it is 1g, so if you let it go it will accelerate at a rate forceover mass, which is g. So the answer depends on your units of mass and weight.That's why science lessons tend to avoid use of "weight". In outer free spacemass would be measured by (say) tension in the string if you whirl it on the endof it around your head, but the weight (measured by a spring balance) would bezero (precisely as described in the first answer above, with g=0).==============================Answer #2.1:The problem with discussing mass and weight in the same units, and the reason that this masked contributor is waging a one-man battle to make the distinction recognized and acknowledged by users of this website, is the new problem thatyou have now that the space age is here.As long as we were all irrevocably bound to the Earth, one kilogram of mass would always weigh one kilogram, if you like it that way. We could afford to be sloppy about it, with hardly one out of ten men-on-the-street knowing or caring about the difference, and nobody ever had a problem with it.But now that some of us have already slipped these surly bonds ... and amongthe general population, the younger you are, the better the chance that you willdo so one day before you're done ... those who ignored the distinction begtweenmass and weight all through school, or never even encountered it there, arepoised to step into an inconvenient pile. Because as soon as you pack for yourtrip to anywhere else away from Earth, and take along your lucky kilogram,you're due for a shock when you step out at your destination: Your kilogramdoesn't "weigh" a kilogram there. It weighs something else. If you're on themoon, for example, your kilogram weighs 0.165 kilogram ! That's theshock I'm trying to avoid, because if you think the straight dope is too complexfor people to handle now, you haven't seen anything yet.
What other vaccines use blood products or antibodies as a means of protection?
Scientists Fear Drugs & Vaccines Made from Cow Blood & Bones May Transmit Mad Cow DiseaseProposal Aimed at Reducing Mad Cow RisksWed Sep 22, 2004By DIEDTRA HENDERSON, Associated Press Science WriterWASHINGTON - The government is taking steps to reduce the already minimalrisk of mad-cow tainted components ending up in childhood vaccines and othermedications.Pharmaceuticals regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (news - websites), including human vaccines and animal drugs used on farms, routinelyuse cow products in their manufacture.The agency this summer strengthened safety measures to reduce the chance ofmad cow-tainted cow parts winding up in such consumer goods as lipstick andhairspray.William Egan, FDA (news - web sites) acting director in the office ofvaccine research and review, told pharmaceutical representatives on Tuesdaythat the new rule is aimed at reducing even further mad cow risk in humanand animal drugs. He did not offer specifics."It's under development. That's all I can say," Egan said during aconference co-sponsored by PDA, an association of scientists involved indrug development and manufacture.There have been no reported cases of mad cow transmitted by medications.Dozens of people, however, were infected with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease(news - websites), related to the human form of mad cow, by taking taintedhuman growth hormone between 1963 and 1985, according to the NationalInstitutes of Health (news - web sites). The method of manufacturing thegrowth hormone was changed in response to that risk.Eating beef from a diseased cow is thought to cause variantCreutzfeldt-Jakob disease. More than 150 cases of variant CJD have beenreported in the world, primarily in Britain, and most of those people havedied. The one case of variant CJD in the United States was in a young womanwho likely contracted the disease while living in Britain.In July 2000, the FDA told manufacturers to replace products in theirvaccines derived from cows born, raised and slaughtered in countries withconfirmed mad cow cases. Manufacturers hustled to find replacement materialsfrom countries whose cows were free of the always fatal brain malady.At the time, no North American cases of mad cow, formally known as bovinespongiform encephalopathy, had been confirmed, until May 2003, when a 6- to8-year-old cow in Alberta, Canada tested positive for mad cow. And, inDecember 2003, a second Canadian cow < this one a 6 1/2-year-old importedinto Washington state < also was confirmed with mad cow.More aggressive surveillance by the Agriculture Department since June 1,2004, has tested 63,341 American cow samples, said Lisa Ferguson, a USDAsenior staff veterinarian. Two samples initially were suspicious but, uponfurther testing, were found not to contain mad cow.The FDA's Egan said the agency has not yet decided whether manufacturerswill have to replace American and Canadian cow products routinely used invaccine manufacturing. Argentina, Australia, Iceland and Uruguay are amongthe dwindling list of countries provisionally free of mad cow.Also not clear is how the FDA would handle licensed vaccines currently onthe market or products progressing along lengthy development pipelines.Even if American and Canadian sources of bovine-derived products wereprohibited, it's not clear how sweeping the impact might be.One drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, already found alternate sources ofmaterials it uses to produce such products as hepatitis A vaccine andrecombinant hepatitis A and B vaccine. While Danielle Halstrom, aGlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman, won't identify the source countries, she saidthey do not include the United States or Canada."The entire process was completed more than a year ago ... to ensure we onlyuse materials from countries" with no mad cow infections, Halstrom said.Cow remnants left over from slaughter have long been used to manufacturedrugs like vaccines. Serum is drawn from cow's blood and sugars from cow'smilk. Amino acids from cow bones are added to growth media to coax alongviral vaccines grown in living cells.Egan suggested the companies consider plant-based and synthetic compounds assubstitutes, culturing methods that don't require serum, and "closed" cattleherds known to be free of mad cow.A Merck representative lobbied from the stage at Tuesday's conference,urging the agency to first issue a letter with its intentions so companieswould have more time to prepare for changes that could affect 80 percent ofpharmaceuticals."We have lifesaving medicines that we produce," said Taryn Rogalski-Salter,a director in the company's department of global regulatory policy, warningabout potential supply disruptions.By: IAN JOHNSTON -- 22-Sep-04
