I would have thought 'opaqueness' would be more accurate.
124964
My Guess:\n\nComplete mechanical obscurity is achieved when the user no longer even notices the mechanical ineteraction when working.  Thus the mechanical interaction is transparent or unseen.\n\nOpaque describes something that is completely solid, or cannot be seen through, and is thus very apparent.  \n\nHowever, I can also understand why you might interpret it the opposite way.  For example, when someone talks about "transparency" in recordkeeping, they mean that nothing is hidden.\n\nThus, in one case "transparency" suggests that something is not noticed, while the other case suggests that it is not hidden.
587167
I think that that is a fair evaluation. Perspective is as much based on background and experience as it is the angle of sight.
251113
You should have TYPED the question carefully...
631834
Some people can't see past ignorance.
366119
because it is more accurate when we know the exact concentration of solutions than when we know whether they are concentrated or dilute. if one person thinks that it is concentrated, maybe others don't think so
655923
If people are telling you that, maybe its a little true? Try working on the flaws you pointed out. Let me know how it goes, hu?
307775
may be theory,or some times assumptions are more\nappropriate.
27392
I agree, it was probably bogus.
184558
A sense or showing of understatement, maybe.
42353
Just guessing...because it's not absorbing it.
84995
not like I would know
676624
Huh?  I think more details may be needed here.
416453
It's easy to agree with you.. I just wish you didn't make so much sense. I can't say anything stronger than that because the eyes are watching ;)
516525
A, but I would say normal distribution to be more accurate.
102456
Things look better with hindsight, this could explain it
121348
Yes it is, because you did not multiply by an approximation of pi, you left the pi whole, so to speak :).  It's more accurate that way.
83791
Invisible Ink Isn't\n\nSeeing Isn't Believing\n\nReading Between The Lines\n\nYou do realize good science titles are not being cute, but short, accurate and correct.