Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 1
Not true at all. My local lake physically demonstrates a gravitational equipotential line, which are, at that scale, the same as contour height lines.
Magnetic field "lines" are fairly similar to fluid flow lines, except with fluid flow lines, you're generally representing the fluid flow using exemplar paths -- so, the lines illustrated are actually fluid particle paths. (You don't generally talk about fluid flow in the context of a potential but no fluid.) Magnetic field lines, on the other hand, are representing the magnetic field -- not the interaction between the magnetic field and charged particles. The magnetic field (and its "lines") are the same even if there are no interacting charged particles.
Re:Well, now we'll know.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You guys with your wacky qualitative science.
Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
My density is fairly close to that of water, just like everyone else. I do have a degree in physics, though, if that helps.
Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible.
on
Sunspots Return
·
· Score: 4, Informative
No, the magnetic field is real but invisible. Magnetic field lines, on the other hand, are simply a mechanism for representing (e.g., on paper) magnetic field orientation and strength. The lines themselves are not real. (Compare with, for example, a topographical map. The height of the earth's surface is real, but the lines on a topographical map are a representation of height; they're not real.)
So, people should protect themselves from their own stupidity. But apparently, creating a government that bars others within their society from taking advantage of their stupidity is not a permissible mechanism to protect themselves?
Now I suppose you'll tell me that since everyone should ensure that they can defend themselves, they should not create an organization of defense specialists tasked with securing the defense of the society.
That's only really true of BitTorrent. Other protocols have added multisource downloads recently, but they tend to do so in an ad-hoc method that uses relatively few peers.
Unfortunately, every time this case comes up, people make estimates and comparisons using BitTorrent, apparently assuming that all P2P is and was like BitTorrent. However, in this case, it was Kazaa (and quite some time ago).
Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers all because some magic list-of-the-week says their Fearless Leader (whom in many cases they came to the US because they don't like the policies or education climate back home) pissed in our Cheerios.
Actually, ITAR regulations require that no foreign nationals work on the project -- not just ones from countries like China and Iran. Many universities (or individual professors) do actually reject any ITAR projects, since it places significant restrictions on them and their students.
The rats? No, they prefer to escape their confinement at NIMH and form a society near a farm. Occasionally, they save mice with pneumonia, write books, and sign animated film deals.
Courts deciding whether we can add features to programs is nonsense.
Of course, I might be biased. I just added an undocumented feature to our popular medical records management software that allows doctors to access patients' medical records over the Internet. Encryption and access restrictions work just fine, I think, provided the software is configured properly...
Reading the section on Martin Luther, I'm not entirely sure your analogy is accurate. Are you criticizing pollution credits on the basis that it is worldly, and that putting an end to pollution is solely the province of God?
They already have a system for taxing motor vehicles proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide produced by the vehicle, assuming there are no vehicles with CO2 scrubbers out there.
Actually, humans don't produce carbon at all. Neither, for that matter, do any plants or animals. Carbon, an element, can only be produced through nuclear reactions. Unless you mean "elemental carbon" (as in a brick of pure carbon -- graphite, diamond, what have you). We don't produce that, either. Of course, that's not what they're looking to tax.
Humans do, on the other hand, produce carbon dioxide. As our carbon comes entirely from the food we eat, it's not a bold statement to say that CO2 production is closely related to caloric intake.
At what point was the President supposed to have gotten this information? You realize this is a report that is the result of a study on effective ways of dealing with road financing, yes? Its purpose is presumably to serve as information for lawmakers in the future. (Note that it is in no way legislation or proposed legislation.) After such a report is released is typically when your lawmakers (and the not-a-lawmaker President) would read about it and react... not before.
Also, should the President really be telling Congressional committees not to release research reports because he might disapprove of their findings?
It doesn't, but it's not really any more reasonable to say that a higher-consumption vehicle necessarily inflicts more wear than a lower-consumption vehicle. (Trucks are another matter; the article clearly implies that commercial-class vehicles would have a different tax.)
I happen to agree with you, but if the purpose of the gas tax is to fund road maintainance, replacing it with a road tax has a certain amount of logic.
Of course, their real problem is that their tax revenue is declining. All solutions necessarily include raising taxes in some way.
Where does Obama factor in to this? Is he even on the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission? Or are you just assuming that anything remotely relating to the federal government must be based on a decision by Obama? Apparently he's some sort of king and every politician and government official in Washington asks his opinion of every matter and does his bidding.
Oh wait, I found a mention of Obama on the second page: "U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this year said the road tax should be among the options considered for future financing, but he backtracked with a statement that such a tax was not Obama administration policy."
Except that doesn't agree with you at all! I'm no Obama fanboy, but you could at least be a little more factually accurate in your criticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true at all. My local lake physically demonstrates a gravitational equipotential line, which are, at that scale, the same as contour height lines.
Magnetic field "lines" are fairly similar to fluid flow lines, except with fluid flow lines, you're generally representing the fluid flow using exemplar paths -- so, the lines illustrated are actually fluid particle paths. (You don't generally talk about fluid flow in the context of a potential but no fluid.) Magnetic field lines, on the other hand, are representing the magnetic field -- not the interaction between the magnetic field and charged particles. The magnetic field (and its "lines") are the same even if there are no interacting charged particles.
You guys with your wacky qualitative science.
My density is fairly close to that of water, just like everyone else. I do have a degree in physics, though, if that helps.
No, the magnetic field is real but invisible. Magnetic field lines, on the other hand, are simply a mechanism for representing (e.g., on paper) magnetic field orientation and strength. The lines themselves are not real. (Compare with, for example, a topographical map. The height of the earth's surface is real, but the lines on a topographical map are a representation of height; they're not real.)
So, people should protect themselves from their own stupidity. But apparently, creating a government that bars others within their society from taking advantage of their stupidity is not a permissible mechanism to protect themselves?
Now I suppose you'll tell me that since everyone should ensure that they can defend themselves, they should not create an organization of defense specialists tasked with securing the defense of the society.
For rare occurrences, a good estimate of the standard deviation is sqrt(n) -- so, roughly +/- 4 deaths.
That's only really true of BitTorrent. Other protocols have added multisource downloads recently, but they tend to do so in an ad-hoc method that uses relatively few peers.
Unfortunately, every time this case comes up, people make estimates and comparisons using BitTorrent, apparently assuming that all P2P is and was like BitTorrent. However, in this case, it was Kazaa (and quite some time ago).
Of course 1+1=1. SchrÃfdinger only had one cat in the box. 1 living cat + 1 dead cat = 1 cat.
Off topic, but in case nobody's told you before, Schrodinger has 1/sqrt(2) living cats and 1/sqrt(2) dead cats. (Not really, but whatever...)
Students who paid the same tuition as every other student, yet cannot experience the same intellectual freedoms as their peers all because some magic list-of-the-week says their Fearless Leader (whom in many cases they came to the US because they don't like the policies or education climate back home) pissed in our Cheerios.
Actually, ITAR regulations require that no foreign nationals work on the project -- not just ones from countries like China and Iran. Many universities (or individual professors) do actually reject any ITAR projects, since it places significant restrictions on them and their students.
The rats? No, they prefer to escape their confinement at NIMH and form a society near a farm. Occasionally, they save mice with pneumonia, write books, and sign animated film deals.
They don't -- they decide if a particular piece of software meets those standards, which is the job a court does.
You could alternately read the article, and find out that they're not banning acetaminophen at all.
All of those drugs are already available without tylenol.
I'm not sure you understand how statistical correlation works.
Courts deciding whether we can add features to programs is nonsense.
Of course, I might be biased. I just added an undocumented feature to our popular medical records management software that allows doctors to access patients' medical records over the Internet. Encryption and access restrictions work just fine, I think, provided the software is configured properly...
I bet they tested it on superintelligent rats.
The article is phrased such that I'd expect a different tax rate for trucks.
Reading the section on Martin Luther, I'm not entirely sure your analogy is accurate. Are you criticizing pollution credits on the basis that it is worldly, and that putting an end to pollution is solely the province of God?
They already have a system for taxing motor vehicles proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide produced by the vehicle, assuming there are no vehicles with CO2 scrubbers out there.
Actually, humans don't produce carbon at all. Neither, for that matter, do any plants or animals. Carbon, an element, can only be produced through nuclear reactions. Unless you mean "elemental carbon" (as in a brick of pure carbon -- graphite, diamond, what have you). We don't produce that, either. Of course, that's not what they're looking to tax.
Humans do, on the other hand, produce carbon dioxide. As our carbon comes entirely from the food we eat, it's not a bold statement to say that CO2 production is closely related to caloric intake.
Seems minor to me; reading the appropriate documentation makes it quite clear exactly what these options do.
I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously when, by his logic, my electricity should actually cost about 0.8 cents per kilowatt-hour.
At what point was the President supposed to have gotten this information? You realize this is a report that is the result of a study on effective ways of dealing with road financing, yes? Its purpose is presumably to serve as information for lawmakers in the future. (Note that it is in no way legislation or proposed legislation.) After such a report is released is typically when your lawmakers (and the not-a-lawmaker President) would read about it and react... not before.
Also, should the President really be telling Congressional committees not to release research reports because he might disapprove of their findings?
It doesn't, but it's not really any more reasonable to say that a higher-consumption vehicle necessarily inflicts more wear than a lower-consumption vehicle. (Trucks are another matter; the article clearly implies that commercial-class vehicles would have a different tax.)
I happen to agree with you, but if the purpose of the gas tax is to fund road maintainance, replacing it with a road tax has a certain amount of logic.
Of course, their real problem is that their tax revenue is declining. All solutions necessarily include raising taxes in some way.
Where does Obama factor in to this? Is he even on the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission? Or are you just assuming that anything remotely relating to the federal government must be based on a decision by Obama? Apparently he's some sort of king and every politician and government official in Washington asks his opinion of every matter and does his bidding.
Oh wait, I found a mention of Obama on the second page: "U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood earlier this year said the road tax should be among the options considered for future financing, but he backtracked with a statement that such a tax was not Obama administration policy."
Except that doesn't agree with you at all! I'm no Obama fanboy, but you could at least be a little more factually accurate in your criticism.