Victoria was physically unprepossessingshe was stout, dowdy and no more than five feet tallbut she succeeded in projecting a grand image. She experienced unpopularity during the first years of her widowhood, but was well liked during the 1880s and 1890s, when she embodied the empire as a benevolent matriarchal figure. Only after the release of her diary and letters did the extent of her political influence become known to the wider public. Biographies of Victoria written before much of the primary material became available, such as Lytton Strachey's Queen Victoria of 1921, are now considered out of date. The biographies written by Elizabeth Longford and Cecil Woodham-Smith, in 1964 and 1972 respectively, are still widely admired. They, and others, conclude that as a person Victoria was emotional, obstinate, honest, and straight-talking.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What kind of person was Victoria?
Ah, so.. emotional, obstinate, honest, and straight-talking

Highlighting the potential for state and non-state actors to commit genocide in the 21st century, for example, in failed states or as non-state actors acquire weapons of mass destruction, Adrian Gallagher defined genocide as 'When a source of collective power (usually a state) intentionally uses its power base to implement a process of destruction in order to destroy a group (as defined by the perpetrator), in whole or in substantial part, dependent upon relative group size'. The definition upholds the centrality of intent, the multidimensional understanding of destroy, broadens the definition of group identity beyond that of the 1948 definition yet argues that a substantial part of a group has to be destroyed before it can be classified as genocide (dependent on relative group size).
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): Which writer examined the possession of identity?
Ah, so.. unanswerable

A synchronous electric motor is an AC motor distinguished by a rotor spinning with coils passing magnets at the same rate as the AC and resulting magnetic field which drives it. Another way of saying this is that it has zero slip under usual operating conditions. Contrast this with an induction motor, which must slip to produce torque. One type of synchronous motor is like an induction motor except the rotor is excited by a DC field. Slip rings and brushes are used to conduct current to the rotor. The rotor poles connect to each other and move at the same speed hence the name synchronous motor. Another type, for low load torque, has flats ground onto a conventional squirrel-cage rotor to create discrete poles. Yet another, such as made by Hammond for its pre-World War II clocks, and in the older Hammond organs, has no rotor windings and discrete poles. It is not self-starting. The clock requires manual starting by a small knob on the back, while the older Hammond organs had an auxiliary starting motor connected by a spring-loaded manually operated switch.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): How isn't current brought to the rotor in a synchronous motor?
Ah, so..
unanswerable