Bomber crews already had some experience with these types of systems due to the deployment of the Lorenz beam, a commercial blind-landing aid which allowed aircraft to land at night or in bad weather. The Germans developed the short-range Lorenz system into the Knickebein aid, a system which used two Lorenz beams with much stronger signal transmissions. The concept was the same as the Lorenz system. Two aerials were rotated for the two converging beams which were pointed to cross directly over the target. The German bombers would attach themselves to either beam and fly along it until they started to pick up the signal from the other beam. When a continuous sound was heard from the second beam the crew knew they were above the target and began dropping their bombs.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): The Germans flew along one beam until they picked up the second beam the sound telling them when to start doing what?
Ah, so.. dropping their bombs

In 494 BC, the city was at war with two neighboring tribes. The plebeian soldiers refused to march against the enemy, and instead seceded to the Aventine Hill. The plebeians demanded the right to elect their own officials. The patricians agreed, and the plebeians returned to the battlefield. The plebeians called these new officials "plebeian tribunes". The tribunes would have two assistants, called "plebeian aediles". During the 5th century BC, a series of reforms were passed. The result of these reforms was that any law passed by the plebeian would have the full force of law. In 443 BC, the censorship was created. From 375 BC to 371 BC, the republic experienced a constitutional crisis during which the tribunes used their vetoes to prevent the election of senior magistrates.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): During what century were reformed passed that allowed laws passed by the plebeians to have the full force of the law?
Ah, so.. 5th century BC

In November 2012, a referendum resulted in 54 percent of respondents voting to reject the current status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, while a second question resulted in 61 percent of voters identifying statehood as the preferred alternative to the current territorial status. The 2012 referendum was by far the most successful referendum for statehood advocates and support for statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum. However, more than one in four voters abstained from answering the question on the preferred alternative status. Statehood opponents have argued that the statehood option garnered only 45 percent of the votes if abstentions are included. If abstentions are considered, the result of the referendum is much closer to 44 percent for statehood, a number that falls under the 50 percent majority mark.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What percentage of voters abstained from voting on a preferred alternative status?
Ah, so..
one in four voters