Generally, if the Republicans and Democrats are agreeing on something pretty much across the board, you can be pretty sure it's gonna be to screw over civil liberties, which is usually when Rand does his bit. Assign motive as you will.
He also writes strong/heroic gay characters (have you read Songmaster, or the Homecoming series). He's not opposed to gay people/gay rights in general, but he STRONGLY believes that the traditional family unit is the foundation of civilization.
I recommend you watch this video to get a better idea of where he's coming from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnhsDuj285c
Sure, but now you're moving from a "why does physics work the way it does" to a "how do we simulate the way it works in a way that is accurate and efficient" question, which in many ways is significantly harder.
I should also point out that the Hamiltonian formulation enforces energy+momentum conservation automatically, so long as the only functional dependences in phase space are on position and momentum.
In general, if your system isn't obeying the appropriate conservation laws, you haven't identified all of the components of your system, which makes it difficult to really identify what's going on.
Not sure where your grad student friend was going with the Feynman diagrams, but a Legendre transformation is used, among other things, to move between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian representations of a dynamical system. The difference between kinetic and potential energy you mention is the definition of the Lagrangian (traditionally written as L = T - V), and when transformed, it yields the Hamiltonian (traditionally written as H = T + V). I personally find the Hamiltonian formulation to be more intuitively accessible: the idea of flow along vector fields in phase space makes a lot more sense to me than the abstract notion of action and variational calculus voodoo. But YMMV.
Ask any physicist, what causes a body in relative inertial motion to remain in motion? I guarantee you will come face to face with either ignorance or outright superstition. If physicists don't even know what causes motion (their denials notwithstanding),
Physicist here. Motion is induced by gradients in potential energy fields, and the transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy is associated with acceleration and deceleration, not with motion itself.
See this image (where H is the total energy of the system, and x_i and p_i are the position and momentum, respectively, of the ith particle in the system).
It wouldn't matter to the end user. But if "Intel went into discrete graphics" it would likely signal a change in R&D priorities, and assuming that they would stay behind in that market seems foolish given the enormous amount of brain power they employ and the obvious bias in their current spending.
"lefties don't like authoritarianism as much"
Say what? Authoritarianism is a whole different spectrum from left/right. Communist dictatorships are as lefty as left can be. They're also authoritarian up the wazoo. Fascist dictatorships are as righty as right can be and also authoritarian up the wazoo. And on the other hand, you have anarchists on both sides - radical individualist righty anarchists, and radical collectivist nobody-owns-anything lefty anarchists.
The Star Wars universe makes a clear distinction between ray shields and particle shields. This is also the case with the shielding over exhaust port on the Death Star.
Slashdot Mirror
Protestants must do no such thing. Sola scriptura is not at all the same thing as a supremely narrow attempt at Biblical literalism.
Apple and Adobe have had a really weird love/hate relationship for years.
Since when do tragedies not get to have strong characters?
Generally, if the Republicans and Democrats are agreeing on something pretty much across the board, you can be pretty sure it's gonna be to screw over civil liberties, which is usually when Rand does his bit. Assign motive as you will.
Of course not. It's fine to kill him, because he needed more responsible parents.
If you think Rand Paul is toeing the party line on this, you're smoking something funny.
Use Apple's bug reporting system. Last time I reported something, it got fixed in the next release.
He also writes strong/heroic gay characters (have you read Songmaster, or the Homecoming series). He's not opposed to gay people/gay rights in general, but he STRONGLY believes that the traditional family unit is the foundation of civilization. I recommend you watch this video to get a better idea of where he's coming from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnhsDuj285c
Q: "Why can't Intel kill x86"? A: Because nobody wants to use anything else.
Sure, but now you're moving from a "why does physics work the way it does" to a "how do we simulate the way it works in a way that is accurate and efficient" question, which in many ways is significantly harder. I should also point out that the Hamiltonian formulation enforces energy+momentum conservation automatically, so long as the only functional dependences in phase space are on position and momentum.
You're looking for Cabamap.
Unfortunately, there's this thing called the "College Board". They make the SATs.
So what you're saying is, you're in the "Hokey recursion-relations and ancient parentheses are no match for a good regex at your side" crowd?
In general, if your system isn't obeying the appropriate conservation laws, you haven't identified all of the components of your system, which makes it difficult to really identify what's going on.
Not sure where your grad student friend was going with the Feynman diagrams, but a Legendre transformation is used, among other things, to move between the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian representations of a dynamical system. The difference between kinetic and potential energy you mention is the definition of the Lagrangian (traditionally written as L = T - V), and when transformed, it yields the Hamiltonian (traditionally written as H = T + V). I personally find the Hamiltonian formulation to be more intuitively accessible: the idea of flow along vector fields in phase space makes a lot more sense to me than the abstract notion of action and variational calculus voodoo. But YMMV.
Physicist here. Motion is induced by gradients in potential energy fields, and the transfer of potential energy to kinetic energy is associated with acceleration and deceleration, not with motion itself. See this image (where H is the total energy of the system, and x_i and p_i are the position and momentum, respectively, of the ith particle in the system).
It wouldn't matter to the end user. But if "Intel went into discrete graphics" it would likely signal a change in R&D priorities, and assuming that they would stay behind in that market seems foolish given the enormous amount of brain power they employ and the obvious bias in their current spending.
Sure, but how much of that is a matter of R&D priorities?
They're also using a huge portion of the BSD userland. The kernel is where the most significant differences are.
I think you're using deprecated packages
Because they're dumb? I dunno.
"lefties don't like authoritarianism as much" Say what? Authoritarianism is a whole different spectrum from left/right. Communist dictatorships are as lefty as left can be. They're also authoritarian up the wazoo. Fascist dictatorships are as righty as right can be and also authoritarian up the wazoo. And on the other hand, you have anarchists on both sides - radical individualist righty anarchists, and radical collectivist nobody-owns-anything lefty anarchists.
but this is in the NYT, so I expected the rampant lefty bias to cancel that out.
Those were Laser gates.
The Star Wars universe makes a clear distinction between ray shields and particle shields. This is also the case with the shielding over exhaust port on the Death Star.
I was an Opera user for about 3 years before I discovered ABP. Glad they've finally caught up.