The force on the tar is not fictional in any frame of reference. The apparent force pushing the occupants of the car to the outside of the turn is a fictional force in the car's frame of reference, while in an inertial frame of reference there is no such apparent force.
The centripetal force is what holds it down, not what holds it up. From an inertial frame of reference, there is no force that holds it up; that's simply a function of its own inertia. If you wish to use the Earth as your reference frame (as you are doing) you must invent a force, called a centrifugal force, to account for the fact that a spinning object is not an inertial reference frame.
Survival? Our SURVIVAL may have been at risk during the Cold War, but not in Iraq. There's just no way that these military operations save more Americans than they kill. September 11th looked nasty on TV, but compare it to automotive crashes, or cancer, or the regular crime that occurs each year, and it's not nearly as big as those in power like to pretend.
If Iraq had been building nuclear weapons, perhaps we could speak of survival, but they weren't. Now Iran is, and we can't do anything about it because we were stupid enough to think invading Iraq would keep Iran in check.
If it could store ANY DVDs, I'd believe you, but as there is no legal way to rip DVDs it simply doesn't work. Apple's products target the mainstream, and the mainstream is not going to buy DVD-ripping software from a website in Sweden. So you need to consider Apple's strategy with the assumption that DVD ripping is simply not possible.
Given that, as long as the DVD is an immensely popular format for movies, any iPod should be seen as Not A Movie Watching Device, period. Design choices that make sense only for movies are not going to happen.
Given that what the patent diagrams show looks like exactly that, a tiny bit of me believes that we'll see it on April 1st. It would be a great April Fool's.
ThinkSecret hasn't been right about much of anything lately, so it's pretty clear that their well has been poisoned. The only reason the site stays running is because they can still get ad impressions on remembered glory.
This new story is probably fake; it's based on the notion that the video iPod isn't the "real" video iPod, which is a very strained argument. Apple has been selling videos at the resolution of the 5G iPod for some time, and the proposed device can't compete with existing portable DVD players for the purpose of watching movies. A bigger screen with the same resolution would increase watchability much less than most people think, and it would be too difficult to hold the device. These facts suggest that Apple is not about to start selling feature films, and further, that Apple is not going to start selling some kind of device massively redesigned for the purpose of video.
If this scoop started showing up in a lot of other places, I'd believe it, but nothing exclusive to ThinkSecret has been true for about six months.
Whoa there -- this particular article is about court-ordered surveillance, not secret wiretaps. If the government can get a warrant, they can come to your house and search through your stuff, they can listen to your phone calls, etc. That's the part of the Constitution where it says "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It's not some sort of evil encroachment on our civil liberties.
This is complete misinformation. AIDS is ALWAYS and ONLY "acquired" immune deficiency syndrome, and it is caused ONLY by the HIV virus, which can fairly accurately called the AIDS virus, though it does not always cause AIDS (any more than influenza viruses always give you the flu). Nobody got AIDS before the introduction of HIV into the population.
There is another disease -- autoimmune disorder -- that is not very much like AIDS, but perhaps you are confusing the two. Autoimmune disorder is not an immunodeficiency disease, though; it's almost the opposite, an overactive immune system.
I'm not exactly a med student either, though I know a little bit about immunodeficiency. While this compound may or may not fight AIDS, it will not work by overcoming the immunodeficiency. It's not possible to replace the functions of a white blood cell with some chemical compound. It's like trying to make honey without bees.
The immune system is one of the most complex systems in the body, and it has one of the most difficult jobs. There is just an incredible array of different cells and substances running around inside a person, and the immune system is required to pick out the few that are hazardous and develop countermeasures to eliminate them. A white blood cell is not merely a little factory that secretes some kind of anti-virus substance -- it's a member of an intricate network of decision-makers.
1. It's easy to prove that humans are not capable of producing something as complex as a modern missile. Consider the temperatures required to work metal and you'll realize that anyone's hands would burn off if they could even heat the metal enough by blowing on it, which is unlikely. Besides, supposing that a missle could be manufactured requires the materials to become more organized, which is against the laws of thermodynamics. 2. Since humans cannot make missiles, all missiles must have been made by God. 3. Missiles made by God would obviously not work against those with faith.
Honestly, if they're looking for people with this virus, they ought to check out their local organ transplant clinic. This article is interesting to me because it's conventional knowledge that people who receive organ transplants (and therefore take drugs which suppress the immune system, leading to increased infections) almost univerally gain weight. In my case, a few years after transplant I started to gain fat suddenly, with no particularly obvious change in diet or lifestyle. Of course there are dozens of possible explanations for that, but a viral infection is an interesting hypothesis.
Not exactly. I'd say the first question suggests that you can separate Americans into two groups: people who like freedom (54%) and people who don't (46%). (Heck, freedom IS hard, so why should people like it so much anyway?)
Something like 15% of the freedom-likers (which amounts to something like 7% of the total population) are either misguided as to the real threats of terrorism or are willing to abandon freedom to reduce a very, very small threat to their personal safety. The other 85% of freedom-likers are either aware that terrorism represents an extremely small danger, or feel that freedom is more important than risk, or both.
Corpus Christi is literally the boondocks. Plenty of Texas politicians say stupid things, but this guy doesn't even have a remote chance of being elected. Calling him a "candidate" is extremely far-fetched.
Anybody can spout nonsense; this guy doesn't have the support of any significant number of Texans, so it's silly to use him as an example of modern Texan politics.
This theory -- that porn was the "true" #1 force behind the VCR and the Internet -- has been repeated so many times that it's taken almost as a truism. But how true is it really? My personal experience suggests that people purchased Internet access for information and communication purposes, and that for the most part it was sites like Amazon that brought us e-commerce. Does anybody know of any research or science that backs up or refutes this claim?
It's because the source is not iTunes or Wal-Mart, it's the music industry. All the product comes from basically the same place -- a handful of sellers which have long agreed not to compete.
Today, the conversation looks like this.
MusicCorp: Raise prices on iTunes. Apple: No. MusicCorp: Raise prices or we won't let you sell our music. Apple: Then you'll lose access to 80% of the market for downloaded music. MusicCorp: Doh. Never mind.
With "competition" between online music stores, the conversation looks like this:
MusicCorp: From now on, singles are $4 and albums are $25. "Competitive" market: Singles for only $3.99! Buy six albums and get a free single!
As a real-world example, consider electricity deregulation, which generally failed to lower prices or improve service to consumers. This was (in part) because while the process created more "sellers", all those sellers still had to buy the real product from basically the same source.
There is no reason whatsoever to license FairPlay, but the reason for this is not obvious.
The truth is that there cannot be meaningful competition in the field of online RIAA music stores because all the music comes from the same handful of sources. There is no way for the different stores to have a meaningfully different collection or meaningfully different price structure. Apple could license FairPlay as Microsoft licenses PlaysForSure, but that merely obscures the fact that the music industry is still in control of the entire process.
Given a lack of competition in the music industry, Apple opening up the iTMS would not actually create more customer choice; rather, it reduces Apple's leverage on the industry and we can assume that the music industry will keep the extra power for itself. Without control over the iPod, Apple has nothing and the music industry will force everyone toward things like subscription services, whole-album downloads, and probably higher prices.
7 billion dollars will have been transferred from Disney to the investors of Pixar, if Disney purchases Pixar with cash.
In actual fact, Disney will probably purchase Pixar with stock, which basically means that all Pixar stock becomes Disney stock (at an exchange rate that both sides feel is favorable) and the combined company would be worth 67 billion.
Really, I should ask what the hell YOU are talking about. I mention that the service under discussion gives me the power to pick a random TV show on a whim and watch the first episode (or any other episode) on-demand. You bring up the VCR, which does not have these features. Yes, the VCR allows me to pick a TV show and watch an episode of it at a later convenient time, but I am still subject to the network's schedule; I don't get to pick the episode, and it won't be delivered to my VCR until it is aired (which could be a week after I decided that I wanted to see it). You have not addressed the original situation, which is "I am bored on a Sunday afternoon", except by suggesting that I go play with my VCR and daydream about the TV shows I'll get to watch someday.
Besides, I'll watch the show on my computer screen, which is reasonably nice, and from my computer chair, which is frankly more comfortable than my sofa. If I like the show, then I would figure out its schedule and set events in motion so that I could watch it on TV. I wouldn't use a VCR, though, as it appears that the networks do not generally show great TV during the middle of the day when I would be at work.
Slashdot Mirror
The force on the tar is not fictional in any frame of reference. The apparent force pushing the occupants of the car to the outside of the turn is a fictional force in the car's frame of reference, while in an inertial frame of reference there is no such apparent force.
The centripetal force is what holds it down, not what holds it up. From an inertial frame of reference, there is no force that holds it up; that's simply a function of its own inertia. If you wish to use the Earth as your reference frame (as you are doing) you must invent a force, called a centrifugal force, to account for the fact that a spinning object is not an inertial reference frame.
Survival? Our SURVIVAL may have been at risk during the Cold War, but not in Iraq. There's just no way that these military operations save more Americans than they kill. September 11th looked nasty on TV, but compare it to automotive crashes, or cancer, or the regular crime that occurs each year, and it's not nearly as big as those in power like to pretend.
If Iraq had been building nuclear weapons, perhaps we could speak of survival, but they weren't. Now Iran is, and we can't do anything about it because we were stupid enough to think invading Iraq would keep Iran in check.
Is that the "coalition of the willing" or the "all-volunteer army"? I always get those mixed up. Has anyone seen my Newspeak dictionary?
If it could store ANY DVDs, I'd believe you, but as there is no legal way to rip DVDs it simply doesn't work. Apple's products target the mainstream, and the mainstream is not going to buy DVD-ripping software from a website in Sweden. So you need to consider Apple's strategy with the assumption that DVD ripping is simply not possible.
Given that, as long as the DVD is an immensely popular format for movies, any iPod should be seen as Not A Movie Watching Device, period. Design choices that make sense only for movies are not going to happen.
Given that what the patent diagrams show looks like exactly that, a tiny bit of me believes that we'll see it on April 1st. It would be a great April Fool's.
ThinkSecret hasn't been right about much of anything lately, so it's pretty clear that their well has been poisoned. The only reason the site stays running is because they can still get ad impressions on remembered glory.
This new story is probably fake; it's based on the notion that the video iPod isn't the "real" video iPod, which is a very strained argument. Apple has been selling videos at the resolution of the 5G iPod for some time, and the proposed device can't compete with existing portable DVD players for the purpose of watching movies. A bigger screen with the same resolution would increase watchability much less than most people think, and it would be too difficult to hold the device. These facts suggest that Apple is not about to start selling feature films, and further, that Apple is not going to start selling some kind of device massively redesigned for the purpose of video.
If this scoop started showing up in a lot of other places, I'd believe it, but nothing exclusive to ThinkSecret has been true for about six months.
Whoa there -- this particular article is about court-ordered surveillance, not secret wiretaps. If the government can get a warrant, they can come to your house and search through your stuff, they can listen to your phone calls, etc. That's the part of the Constitution where it says "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It's not some sort of evil encroachment on our civil liberties.
This is complete misinformation. AIDS is ALWAYS and ONLY "acquired" immune deficiency syndrome, and it is caused ONLY by the HIV virus, which can fairly accurately called the AIDS virus, though it does not always cause AIDS (any more than influenza viruses always give you the flu). Nobody got AIDS before the introduction of HIV into the population.
There is another disease -- autoimmune disorder -- that is not very much like AIDS, but perhaps you are confusing the two. Autoimmune disorder is not an immunodeficiency disease, though; it's almost the opposite, an overactive immune system.
I'm not exactly a med student either, though I know a little bit about immunodeficiency. While this compound may or may not fight AIDS, it will not work by overcoming the immunodeficiency. It's not possible to replace the functions of a white blood cell with some chemical compound. It's like trying to make honey without bees.
The immune system is one of the most complex systems in the body, and it has one of the most difficult jobs. There is just an incredible array of different cells and substances running around inside a person, and the immune system is required to pick out the few that are hazardous and develop countermeasures to eliminate them. A white blood cell is not merely a little factory that secretes some kind of anti-virus substance -- it's a member of an intricate network of decision-makers.
Ok, ok, excuse me. The missiles are either made by God, or space aliens.
I think it makes sense.
1. It's easy to prove that humans are not capable of producing something as complex as a modern missile. Consider the temperatures required to work metal and you'll realize that anyone's hands would burn off if they could even heat the metal enough by blowing on it, which is unlikely. Besides, supposing that a missle could be manufactured requires the materials to become more organized, which is against the laws of thermodynamics.
2. Since humans cannot make missiles, all missiles must have been made by God.
3. Missiles made by God would obviously not work against those with faith.
Honestly, if they're looking for people with this virus, they ought to check out their local organ transplant clinic. This article is interesting to me because it's conventional knowledge that people who receive organ transplants (and therefore take drugs which suppress the immune system, leading to increased infections) almost univerally gain weight. In my case, a few years after transplant I started to gain fat suddenly, with no particularly obvious change in diet or lifestyle. Of course there are dozens of possible explanations for that, but a viral infection is an interesting hypothesis.
Not exactly. I'd say the first question suggests that you can separate Americans into two groups: people who like freedom (54%) and people who don't (46%). (Heck, freedom IS hard, so why should people like it so much anyway?)
Something like 15% of the freedom-likers (which amounts to something like 7% of the total population) are either misguided as to the real threats of terrorism or are willing to abandon freedom to reduce a very, very small threat to their personal safety. The other 85% of freedom-likers are either aware that terrorism represents an extremely small danger, or feel that freedom is more important than risk, or both.
Hey, you can say anything with statistics.
I've used iTunes only a little bit, but enough to know that most albums are sold at a discount from the $0.99/song price.
Of course, few albums have as many as 20 songs, and still fewer have 20 good songs.
Yeah well, according to the US government, that war was started by the terrorists.
You forget that the US is a democracy and democracies never start wars, by definition... at least according to the US government.
What do you think "redundant" means? The mod is not "already posted on this story".
The mod may be wrong, but "redundant" makes plenty of sense for some early posts at least.
Corpus Christi is literally the boondocks. Plenty of Texas politicians say stupid things, but this guy doesn't even have a remote chance of being elected. Calling him a "candidate" is extremely far-fetched.
Anybody can spout nonsense; this guy doesn't have the support of any significant number of Texans, so it's silly to use him as an example of modern Texan politics.
This theory -- that porn was the "true" #1 force behind the VCR and the Internet -- has been repeated so many times that it's taken almost as a truism. But how true is it really? My personal experience suggests that people purchased Internet access for information and communication purposes, and that for the most part it was sites like Amazon that brought us e-commerce. Does anybody know of any research or science that backs up or refutes this claim?
You can insert badgers if you like, but I don't give a damn unless you actually have an argument.
It's because the source is not iTunes or Wal-Mart, it's the music industry. All the product comes from basically the same place -- a handful of sellers which have long agreed not to compete.
Today, the conversation looks like this.
MusicCorp: Raise prices on iTunes.
Apple: No.
MusicCorp: Raise prices or we won't let you sell our music.
Apple: Then you'll lose access to 80% of the market for downloaded music.
MusicCorp: Doh. Never mind.
With "competition" between online music stores, the conversation looks like this:
MusicCorp: From now on, singles are $4 and albums are $25.
"Competitive" market: Singles for only $3.99! Buy six albums and get a free single!
As a real-world example, consider electricity deregulation, which generally failed to lower prices or improve service to consumers. This was (in part) because while the process created more "sellers", all those sellers still had to buy the real product from basically the same source.
There is no reason whatsoever to license FairPlay, but the reason for this is not obvious.
The truth is that there cannot be meaningful competition in the field of online RIAA music stores because all the music comes from the same handful of sources. There is no way for the different stores to have a meaningfully different collection or meaningfully different price structure. Apple could license FairPlay as Microsoft licenses PlaysForSure, but that merely obscures the fact that the music industry is still in control of the entire process.
Given a lack of competition in the music industry, Apple opening up the iTMS would not actually create more customer choice; rather, it reduces Apple's leverage on the industry and we can assume that the music industry will keep the extra power for itself. Without control over the iPod, Apple has nothing and the music industry will force everyone toward things like subscription services, whole-album downloads, and probably higher prices.
7 billion dollars will have been transferred from Disney to the investors of Pixar, if Disney purchases Pixar with cash.
In actual fact, Disney will probably purchase Pixar with stock, which basically means that all Pixar stock becomes Disney stock (at an exchange rate that both sides feel is favorable) and the combined company would be worth 67 billion.
Really, I should ask what the hell YOU are talking about. I mention that the service under discussion gives me the power to pick a random TV show on a whim and watch the first episode (or any other episode) on-demand. You bring up the VCR, which does not have these features. Yes, the VCR allows me to pick a TV show and watch an episode of it at a later convenient time, but I am still subject to the network's schedule; I don't get to pick the episode, and it won't be delivered to my VCR until it is aired (which could be a week after I decided that I wanted to see it). You have not addressed the original situation, which is "I am bored on a Sunday afternoon", except by suggesting that I go play with my VCR and daydream about the TV shows I'll get to watch someday.
Besides, I'll watch the show on my computer screen, which is reasonably nice, and from my computer chair, which is frankly more comfortable than my sofa. If I like the show, then I would figure out its schedule and set events in motion so that I could watch it on TV. I wouldn't use a VCR, though, as it appears that the networks do not generally show great TV during the middle of the day when I would be at work.