Fuse

Going from 9s to 13s will almost certainly require a setup I would think. Don't take this the wrong way, but by virtue of the fact you referred to the truss rod as "that screw that alters the neck position" I'd suggest you might want to take it to get done professionally, or at the very least look up how to set up a guitar on the internet. I just don't want to see you damage your guitar by being overzealous with the truss rod! I'm not sure why you're wanting to jump up to such thick strings though, generally you'd only go up to 13s if you're tuning down really low. If you're playing in standard then 10s are more the norm, if you start going too thick in standard you're really going to struggle to bend them. You will get a 'fuller' sound with thick strings, but really their main advantage is when you start tuning low so that you can keep the string tension.

So the only thing stopping you from punching your girlfriend is the fear of legal action? Nice guy.

Be VERY careful diluting sulphuric acid. It's a very exothermic reaction which can boil when you're doing it, splashing concentrated acid out of the container. You need to add small amounts of acid to large amounts of water, never do it the other way round (i.e. don't pour water into a container of concentrated acid).

I don't know what sort of quantities you're talking about, but out of interest where are you planning on getting the sulphuric acid from? Getting hold of chemicals isn't necessarily a case of just popping down the shops! There's also the issue of how you'd dispose of the acid as well, you can't simpy pour it down the sink, it's more than a little frowned upon! Basically, while there are worse chemicals to handle, if you don't know what you're doing it's still dangerous enough to cause you problems. It's very toxic, corrosive, highly reactive and generally very unpleasant if you get any on your skin or in your eyes. I guess what I'm saying is don't piss around with chemicals if you don't know what you're doing (which maybe you do, I'm just hazarding a guess that you've perhaps not given this side of it much thought yet).

Screw the lot of 'em, Bareknuckle's are the way forward

It's pretty much a requirement of the mortgage company that you take out some form of building insurance (the mortgage company only care about protecting their investment, i.e. the building, hence the need for building insurance) and the flood cover would be part of the buildings insurance. This is generally separate to building & contents insurance, which as the name suggests covers both the structure and the belongings within it. There's no way to know without reading through your actual documents or phoning up the insurer, but my initial guess would be that the flood cover would only pay out for any structural repairs needed on the building itself, not the stuff you own inside it.

You need to find out what speed RAM your motherboard will support. It'll say in the manual, or if you don't have it then go to the manufacturers site and it should be available as a download. Even if it does support super fast stuff (which judging by your other components I doubt) it would still be throttled by the speed of your current RAM anyway. With graphics cards it should be a straight swap, but beware that if you've got a cheap power supply it might not have enough juice to run it properly. Regards the 64 bit operating system, I'd be very surprised if it is, not too many people use them and those that do have it for a specific reason. You're unlikely to have a PC with a 64 bit OS unless you asked for it specifically.

The important thing to remember is that protein shakes are a supplement. Under no circumstances should you be relying on them so heavily as for them to be your only source of protein, that's not what they're about. Most bodybuilders will take at least one shake per day (sometimes more on training days) and have been doing so for years. There are some people who suggest that excessive use of protein powders may be harmful to the kidneys. I stress some as I believe they are a minority and most believe them to be completely safe. In any case you should be drinking lots of water throughout the day anyway which will take the load off and help maintain healthy kidneys (kind of like a flushing them out kind of thing). I'm not too keen on your reasoning about what happens to protein left in the shaker for a few hours. Yes it does cake onto the sides, but then so do loads of other foods (hell Weetabix practically turns to concrete if you leave it on the side of a bowl for a few hours but I don't hear anyone screaming about what effect eating two of those at breakfast every morning does to the kidneys). What happens to food left in open air isn't necessarily what happens to food once it's in your digestive system.

Wait, what's actually hurting, your legs or your shoulders? They way you've written it makes it sound like your shoulders are hurting from resting the bar across them when doing the squats. That wouldn't be muscle soreness but bruising due to the weight pressing down on them. If that's the case maybe use a folded up towel between your shoulders and bar to take some of the pressure off? If it's your back aching I'd suggest getting someone who knows what they're doing to critique your form, as it's highly probable you're doing them wrong. Doing squats wrongly could give you soreness in your back and/or knees that you really don't want. In any case it's worth getting someone to critique you anyway. The amount of folks I see in the gym doing what they think is a squat when in reality they're not even doing a quarter squat - your legs should go past parallel with the ground so your bum is almost touching the floor).

I'd argue if you're trying to find ways of pissing your girlfriend off about what happened then things aren't fine or back to how they were before it happened. Clearly you're still harbouring a great amount of ill feeling and mistrust towards her and that's not healthy for any relationship. I'm not going to say either way whether you should or shouldn't have taken her back, frankly only you can decide that, but if you have taken her back you have to forgive what she did and not harbour resentment towards her or it'll never work long term. If you can't forgive then you need to split up, or it'll just end in tears further down the line anyway.

(-5 x 4) + (-2 x 1) = -20 + (-2) = -22 (-3 x 4) + (1 x 1) = -12 + 1 = -11 It's been a while since I did these, but from what I remember and looking at the numbers, it seems to work.

No problem, Mink did the hard work I remember doing this stuff a few years back but without my book of trig identities (which is sat in a box somewhere along with all my other college and uni work!) I wouldn't have been able to do it these days.

The last step is just multiplying both sides by sin2x. The "1" then becomes sin2x and the cos2x/sin2x cancels leaving just cos2x. On the other side you'd have sin2x/sin2x which cancels to 1.

Schecter Blackjack (Seymour Duncans) ESP/Ltd K-500 (EMG's) Mesa/Boogie F-30 Keeley modded SD-1 Boss CH-1 Dunlop Crybaby I came to within minutes of buying a Les Paul a few months back, and then bought a house instead! Bye bye new guitars for a while then!

It's worth noting that Half Life 2 is quite CPU intensive. The best way to find out if your CPU is holding it back, change the resolution and detail to minimum and note the framerate, then bump everything up really high and note the framerate again. If there's practically no difference the CPU is holding you back. On the other hand, if you get a massive drop in framerate when you up the res and detail it's more likely the graphics card causing the issue. In reality you're probably somewhere in between, and if that's the case just changing the gfx or the cpu probably won't make a massive difference.

IQ tests take account of age. It's based on a curve, whereby the average score is 100. By the very definition of IQ, a score of 100 is the average for the population. Whether you take the test at age 10 or 100, you're still being compared against the average for that age range, and as such your score should remain roughly the same whenever you take the test. Of course the more you practice doing questions like those in the tests the better you become at them, so it's reasonable to assume that if you did 100 of those tests in a row you'd probably improve your score. That doesn't mean you've become more intelligent, just that the test has stopped working right with you as you're too used to it.

By the very definition, an IQ of 100 is average. I wouldn't put much faith in that online test. A real IQ test takes about an hour to complete from memory, and is a hell of a lot more in depth that the online version. Plus, there's a timelimit on certain elements of the test when you do a proper one. That online one will give perhaps a very rough idea of your IQ at best, so don't get carried away if you score very high or low.

The problem is, it isn't really the oil companies that are causing the high price of petrol. It's more to do with the fact that the government tax the hell out of it.

I'd go see the doctor. It could be nothing, it could be something. For the sake of an hour to go and see a doc you may as well - you don't really want to mess about where the heart is concerned.

But 'black' is a human concept. Black is just the name we've chosen to give what we see (or rather what we don't see!). For all I know what I call black is what you call blue. There's no way of defining it other than to say it's black.

I'd argue the chances aren't just as high though. The chances of a 45 year old who has just passed their test taking a bunch of their friends and going hell for leather on the roads to show off isn't exactly as high as a 17 year old doing it though is it? It's not so much the inexperience, more the maturity. At 17 some people (and it is just some) have the whole perception that nothing they do has any consequences. They don't realise that ploughing 50mph into the corner might result in them crashing (or worse hitting somebody else). A 45 year old will generally be a lot more mature and drive with a certain amount of responsibility. I know it's a big step to raise the driving age and it's massively unfair on those who do treat driving seriously, but really, at 17 a lot of people are still incredibly immature and have no perception of the consequences of their actions. Raising the age to 18 might just help a little. I'm also a believer that anybody who fails their test 3 times should be disqualified from taking another test for at least 2-3 years. Honestly, if you can't pass in 3 goes you seriously shouldn't be behind the wheel. You could take it a fourth time and get lucky in the present system, but I'd argue that the 3 previous failures highlight a serious deficiency in your driving ability.

Well I may as well join in and post my rig up. Schecter Blackjack (Seymour Duncans)LTD K-500 (EMG's)Mesa/Boogie F30Keeley SD-1Boss CH-1Dunlop CrybabyThere's so much more stuff I want to get, but when you're trying to save for a house it becomes difficult to justify dropping thousands of pounds on guitars!

Yes they can be done on your own, but most certainly with the aid of the rack, something like this: That way if you're struggling with a rep and you can't physically stand up, you can just drop down and the two horizontal bars will take the weight. Without something like that, or without someone to spot you, you stand a very real chance of hurting yourself when squatting, particularly with big weights.

Here's an interesting one for you then, if you seem so hell bent on singling out footballers as ludicrously high earners. What about movie stars? Tom Cruise - $75m for Mission Impossible 2 Cameron Diaz - $20m Charlie's Angels 2 Tom Hanks - $70m Forest Gump Bruce Willis - $100m Sixth Sense I could go on, but you get the picture. Do they work any harder than top level footballers. Probably not, but their salaries are even higher, considering each of those films probably took no more than 12 months filming for each actor. Let's try a different career, what about writing. JK Rowling has reputedly earnt close to $1bn from the Harry Potter series. I wonder how much hard work that took. Hmm, ok, what about another profession, music. Paul McCartney's personal fortune of close to £1bn. Let's see, over a 50 year career that would be over £380,000 per week then, yet I don't see you singling him out as a disgraceful high wage earner. Before you start singling out footballers as the root of all evil, be aware that astronomical salaries are rife throughout the whole entertainment industry. The thing to remember is these people represent the very pinacle of their professions. For every David Beckham, Tom Cruise and JK Rowling there are many, many more people getting by on distinctly average salaries. It's the same in any profession. The average doctor/fireman/etc. gets paid a comparatively modest salary, but get to the top 1% of the profession and you'll find company directors, specialist surgeons, etc. earning vast sums of money, just as at the top of the football chain are high paid footballers, whilst the football leagues and below contain thousands of very averagely paid players. Make no mistake, players like Beckham have busted a gut to be where they are. Sure there's an element of natural talent, but at the same time you don't get to that sort of level on natural talent alone. There has to be a huge amount of dedication, training, sacrifice, etc. to achieve what he has. I for one won't begrudge what they get paid. Jealous of it of course, but if you get to the very top of whatever your chosen profession is, you deserve to be rewarded for it.

I know I said I didn't have much time, but it seems I've got a few more minutes Renting isn't necessarily cheaper, and in fact I would argue the opposite. The place I'm in at the moment costs £575 a month to rent. I'd estimate that the property is probably worth around £130k. Based on a 30 year repayment period and an interest rate of 6%, that would give mortgage repayments of something like £750 per month, which is significantly more than it's costing in rent!