Rainman

A systems volume shrinks by decreasing 9.60 L under constant pressure of 1.50 atm while absorbing 1.108 kJ of heat energy?

Determine the sign and numerical value of internal energy, work and enthalpy in J or kJ.

I am able to figure out work but I am struggling to find the internal energy and enthalpy. Thanks for the help.

1. Jacoby Ellsbury (Bos - OF)

2. Roy Halladay (Phi - SP)

3. Víctor Martínez (Bos - C,1B)

4. Chone Figgins (Sea - 3B)

5. James Loney (LAD - 1B)

6. Asdrubal Cabrera (Cle - 2B,SS)

7. Elvis Andrus (Tex - SS)

8. Manny Ramírez (LAD - OF)

9. Russell Martin (LAD - C)

10. Jason Kubel (Min - OF)

11. Rafael Furcal (LAD - SS)

12. Jorge De La Rosa (Col - SP)

13. Brian Fuentes (LAA - RP)

14. Francisco Cordero (Cin - RP)

15. Joe Saunders (LAA - SP)

16. Scott Feldman (Tex - SP)

17. Ryan Franklin (StL - RP)

18. J.A. Happ (Phi - SP,RP)

19. J.D. Drew (Bos - OF)

20. Tyler Clippard (Was - RP)

21. Michael Wuertz (Oak - RP)

22. Cody Ross (Fla - OF)

23. Joel Piñeiro (LAA - SP)

We got a new 11 month old puppy. We are unsure of what is the best pet food to get him. there are many to choose from..what are your recommendations what is the best kibble out there.

I'm in a 12 team leauge and it's a head to head leauge.

Geovany Soto (ChC - C)

Miguel Cabrera (Det - 1B,3B)

Ian Kinsler (Tex - 2B)

Edwin Encarnación (Cin - 3B)

Miguel Tejada (Hou - SS)

Manny Ramírez (LAD - OF)

Jacoby Ellsbury (Bos - OF)

Jermaine Dye (CWS - OF)

David Ortiz (Bos - Util)

Jorge Cantú (Fla - 1B,3B)

Xavier Nady (NYY - OF)

James Shields (TB - SP)

Joba Chamberlain (NYY - SP,RP)

Mariano Rivera (NYY - RP)

Huston Street (Col - RP)

Chris Young (SD - SP)

Aaron Harang (Cin - SP)

Mike Pelfrey (NYM - SP)

Jered Weaver (LAA - SP)

Joe Saunders (LAA - SP)

Hiroki Kuroda(LAD - SP)

The Leauge is 12 teams and is Head to Head.

A.J. Pierzynski (CWS - C)

Mark Teixeira (NYY - 1B) Robinson Canó (NYY - 2B)

Miguel Cabrera (Det - 1B,3B)

Troy Tulowitzki (Col - SS)

Carl Crawford (TB - OF)

Rick Ankiel (StL - OF)

Jayson Werth (Phi - OF)

Jorge Cantú (Fla - 1B,3B)

Orlando Hudson (LAD - 2B)

Mike Jacobs (KC - 1B)

Dan Haren (Ari - SP)

Rich Harden (ChC - SP)

B.J. Ryan (Tor - RP)

Jonathan Papelbon (Bos - RP)

Francisco Cordero (Cin - RP)

Carlos Zambrano (ChC - SP)

Justin Duchscherer (Oak - SP)

John Maine (NYM - SP)

Jamie Moyer (Phi - SP)

Hiroki Kuroda (LAD - SP)

Ryan Theriot (SS-CHC) for Troy Tulowitzki (SS-Col)

I have Troy Tulowitzki on my team.

Work in Iraq? Deploying soon want to make sure before I buy.

Work in Iraq?

I honestly think Obama won especially on the economy, healthcare and abortion. I'm also glad the Ayers and Acorn (non) issue is resolved.

Noticed that Obama stayed on the stage longer than McCain to shake the people's hands. I thought that was very presidential don't you think? While we are at it who do you think won the debate tonight?

For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?

So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John McCain in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.

And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.

He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.

And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.

And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.

Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.

For me, this surreal moment - like the entire surrealism of the past ten days - is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It's about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?

So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil. When he knew that George W. Bush's war in Iraq was a fiasco and catastrophe, and before Donald Rumsfeld quit, McCain endorsed George W. Bush against his fellow Vietnam vet, John McCain in 2004. By that decision, McCain lost any credibility that he can ever put country first. He put party first and his own career first ahead of what he knew was best for the country.

And when the Senate and House voted overwhelmingly to condemn and end the torture regime of Bush and Cheney in 2006, McCain again had a clear choice between good and evil, and chose evil.

He capitulated and enshrined torture as the policy of the United States, by allowing the CIA to use techniques as bad as and worse than the torture inflicted on him in Vietnam. He gave the war criminals in the White House retroactive immunity against the prosecution they so richly deserve. The enormity of this moral betrayal, this betrayal of his country's honor, has yet to sink in. But for my part, it now makes much more sense. He is not the man I thought he was.

And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama's virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent's patriotism.

And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That's all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.

Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country's safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country's national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain - no one else - has proved it.

Where has she been? Why wont the McCain campaign let her go out on her own and do her thing? Is it true the the acceptance speech she gave was written by someone else?

I thought since he was a Vietnam Veteran, he would veterans like myself more of a break and help us out. What gives? Here's links I found during my research. I also found that Obama supports Veterans better than McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK_9sI7hzAc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzr3pdXqZ98&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spflya_2e5w&NR=1

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_i...

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_i...

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php...

can_id=9490&type=category&category=66&go.x=19&go.y=12

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php...

Should I buy phone cards or should I buy a cell phone with an international plan?

Going to Iraq next year for the first time. Should I buy a crap load of calling cards, I know they have phone centers, or should I just buy a cell phone with international plan. Will a cell phone even work over there, I'm 99.9% sure we are going to Ramadie.

I'm deploying to Iraq in early 2009, I am an E-4 with 4 years of service. I am not married or have dependants. I will be in the sandbox getting shot at, not on a ship. Someone please give me a ballpark estimate of how much money I will have when I come back. I greatly appreciate it. The deployment is just for 7 months and yes I know after the first month the income is tax free besides social security. Thanks again.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Would you be willing to vote for Obama if he picks Hagel as his Vice President?