Unless you're in Tokyo (or the greater Kanto region), where the etiquette is to stand on the left and pass on the right.

It's not about walking on the escalator because you're late, it's about increasing the throughput of the elevator. If there is no rule regarding this, the natural tendency is for people to stand alternatively left and right, so there will be unused space throughout the escalator. by forcing standing people to one side frees up this space, and of course the walking people increase throughput as well.

However, I did hear that this method is particularly punishing on the machinery, due to the fact that weight is unbalanced most of the time, and it also increases the danger of clothing being stuck. The woes of super-crowded east asian urban life I guess.

As a foreigner, most of these names don't ring a bell (great dam though, Hoover), but President James Monroe and his Monroe Doctrine are too important to be left out. His term might be unimpressive domestically, but his legacy in shaping world politics in the two centuries to come should not be ignored.

Truth is, there's a separate name for just about everything up there in the Chinese section aside from the breads.

The character "? (gao)" is a general noun meaning (roughly) cake or dessert, therefore it almost always needs another adjective to denote which specific kind of cake it is. "?? (dangao)" means literally "egg-cake", while "?? (beigao)" would mean "cup-cake".

Similarly, the character "? (bing)" would mostly be used to denote any food that's round and flat, usually made of flour (and never used as a counter). So crepe would be "??? (keli-bing, this one's a phonetic translation)", pancakes would be "???? (mei shi jian bing, American styled fried bing)", while cookies are "?? (bingan, bing dried)" and biscuits are called "??? (bisiji, another phonetic translation)".

So yeah, as a nation with a long and proud culinary tradition, we certainly don't round up stuff and call them similar names as this English gentlemen suggest...

To convert C to F, you multiply it by 9/5, then add 32. In this case, -40*(9/5)+32 = -40, which means -40C is equal = -40F.

Just a quirk of physics I'd say.

This is NOT supercavitation.

While superficially similar, supercavitation refers to the lowering of water pressure surrounding a submerged body to below vapor pressure, by means of the Bernoulli's principle. By such the object is actually traveling through water vapor instead of water, greatly reducing drag.

This post is misleading. As the New York Times article explains, The EPA is just following the standards set by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, and if anything, they have been "lenient" by the standards.

Whether the law itself is bad or not remains debatable, as the goal was apparently to provide incentives for the development of biofuel. In hindsight we might say that Congress had been overoptimistic, but perhaps an extra $6.8 million in research spending early on would have spared them this penalty.

If anything, law is law, and unless overturned it stands above logic.