Not in the non-US English speaking world. A bit like "Whilst".
'Spelled', on the other hand, refers to only one thing
Spelled is ambigious too - if you spelled someone, you relieved them temporary from duties or work, or possibly put someone under a magic spell. You spelled by having arranged the letters of a word in order, but if you spelled something out you explained in great detail.
Most mixes will be normoxic or hyperoxic. It is only when you go below about 65m do you start dabbling with hypoxic mixes. I've never been this deep and have no intentions of going - these sorts of dives take months of planning, support teams, the whole nine yards [*]and are uncommon. It's barely recreational diving anymore.
As for the accelerated deco - the trick is to get as little N2 in the gas you are breathing as possible - so the higher O2 the better (=quicker). Most people use 80% as you get a bit more margin on the depth you can go to before 02 toxicity gives you a convulsion (and you therefore die) (80% allows 10m depth, 100% allows only 6m [**]). As you normally decompress at 6m using 100% you have to be very sure of your depth control. The other reason is that it is very hard to get 100% O2 at 200bar anywhere, whereas 160bar is reasonably common (which you top with air to 200bar). Use 100% O2 as part of the ascent and you will die - instant O2 toxicity. There have been several cases of people dying from this by using the wrong bottle.
And no, your point about the common man went completely over my head - must have been having a slow day: sorry. Absolutely true though - goggles, flippers, and oxygen bottles are all a diver needs.
[*] actually, you only need all the planning and support if you want to live. Lots of people have forgone these and did the one way trip.
[**] these depths are the depth where you start playing russian roulette with O2 toxicity - as you get deeper you stand a bigger chance of getting a hit. The rule of thumb during deco is 1.6 bar you're ok, 2.6 bar your probably dead, and the chances of you being dead increase between these two marks.
Pure oxygen is NEVER used in diving (rebreathers aside.. that's another story).
Not quite true - some people (mainly deep divers) use 100% O2 for accelerated decompression.
The closest thing you get is enriched air diving, and that has a very limited depth (much less than what you can do on standard compressed air, which is what most recreational divers use). Enriched air is used to stay at shallower depths longer (you can train yourself to breathe slower, due to the higher oxygen count, and stay down longer) and is great for sightseeing on coral reefs and whatnot
Close - there are a couple of reasons for using Nitrox:
1) Reduces risk of decompressions sickness 2) Reduces Nitrogen Narcosis. 3) Reduces fatigue (could be psychological, but it's definitely true) 4) Extends no decompression bottom time (the time you spend at your target depth).
I've certainly not noticed a decrease in air consumption at depth when using nitrox.
Different gas mixes are used the deeper you go, but all of them have a lower oxygen percentage than standard air; the higher the pressure, the less actual oxygen you want in that air.
Absolutely not true - while, when you start going to silly depths, you do get what are called hypoxic mixes (less than 21% O2), these are rare. Most Trimix divers use normoxic mixes (21% 02) or hyperoxic mixes. The main reason is that if you are using a hypoxic mix you have more helium and less oxygen, and this gets really expensive. Hypoxic mixes can also make you pass out if you try breathing them in shallow water.
for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.
The theoretical physics bit is though to refer to his work on relativity and Brownian motion.
The reason why the award was couched in such vague terms was that, at the time, no one was sure what to make of the theory - it stood in splendid isolation: difficult to do experiments on, and difficult to integrate with the rest of physics (some things don't change). And as it was an unusual theory nobody was really sure of it's importance. E=mc^2 was yet to be demonstrated (in the shape of a mushroom cloud) and drive home exactly what its importance was.
Actually, we're both confused. It was actually Geiger (of counter fame) who proposed the experiment, and Marsden who did it, although Rutherford exploited it.
I did read the whole article. I also studied the subject for a while when doing a physics degree at university so I am keenly aware of the context.
Michael was flat out wrong in that the article explained the debate, and the rather than supported one side of it. It is, as the article said, a matter of semantics.
Liquid means lots of things: the two most common technical meanings are 1) this flows and 2) this has no long range crystalline order. Hence by 2) glass is a liquid, and by 1) glass isn't. Hence the conclusion from the article that it is a matter of semantics.
Apparently not, or the link would have been "Is Glass liquid or solid?", the actual title of the article. I'll repeat the start of its conclusion here:
There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?". In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that it is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter which is neither liquid nor solid. The difference is semantic.
It creates a vibrant research community, which is good for a vibrant teaching environment. (Debatable, but at least some people think so.)
Most people, I think, would say the opposite - a vibrant teaching environment creates a vibrant research environment. Stories of the Institute for Advanced Studies (a great physicists only place, where there were no students) indicates that with nobody around asking the "obvious" questions actually creates a sterile environment.
diamonds have no resale value. Naddah. Zilch. They'll sell you the shit, but damn it, they're not taking it back at any price.
Odd - second hand diamond rings certainly sell for close to new prices. Also when I bought my wife a diamond pendant in Amsterdam for our anniversary (erm 2nd, not 60th!) it came with a buy-back guarantee that was valid indefinitely for a large proportion of the price (I think 90% but it was a few years ago now).
The watt is not a unit of energy - it is a unit of power (i.e. how much energy per unit time). The unit of energy (in SI) is the Joule.
So if you dropped a 1kg weight 1 meter, 1 watt of energy would be used up.
No - it would be converted from gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy (and it would be 9.8J anyway). You don't use up energy per se (although you do (almost invariably) convert it from useful forms to less useful forms - this is entropy exerting its grip).
This means that there should be one entity on the screen (window, icon, whatever) for each document - not one application window with multiple documents hidden inside of it.
That is the way it is done in Word 2000 (and, I assume, Word XP or 2002 or whatever they have called it) - different icons on the task bar, and different windows on screen.
Excel, on the other hand, had different icons on the task bar but a single multidocument instance for all spreadsheets. Now I really don't mind either of these paradigms, but having both at the same time is annoying.
The most important thing in any interface is consistency - when I go to a word document and click the "X" in the top right hand corner I expect that document and only that document to close, which it does. When I do the same action in Excel all open spreadsheets close. This is classic bad design, and the people responsible should be dragged out back and shot pour encourager les autres - it's the only language these people understand.
Tony Blair's government investigated the background of a rail crash survivor. 32 people were killed, and she publicly criticized a government minister, Stephen Byers, for his lack of competence in running the railways. The government looked for anything it could use to discredit her, including her political affiliations (IIRC, she had none).
Sounds good, but isn't true. The e-mail that sparked the story said
Can you get some sort of check done on the people who are making a big fuss on the Paddington Survivors group attacking SB please (ie the ones taking over from Pam Warren). The names are in the press.
Pam Warren was the survivor in question. So the e-mail was specifically talking about the ones taking over the organisation and not her. The main man in question - Mr Minns - was not actually involved in the crash, but was a long standing member of the Conservative Party (the opposition to the government). He got involved in the group in the first place as a paid advisor to the insurers of Railtrack (one of the parties thought to be responsible for the crash).
As I said, you're moving the goalposts, from "Musician" to "Someone who is a member of an incredibly small subset of musicians that I haven't actually defined but every time you find a counterexample I'll change the definition so that I'm still right."
Not content with redefining your definition of musician, you have redefined what they need to have done to satisfy you: from "famous musicians who got famous without major-label support" to "one who has prospered completely outside the major-label system during the period of history in which the major-label system has existed". Which is a fairly substantial change.
In reply to your original definition acts like Genesis (originally Charisma), Pink Floyd (originally Harvest), REM (originally IRS Records) all became famous without the help of a major label.
Now, watch you don't hurt your back dragging your goalposts back under your bridge.
Chopin made his living primarily through teaching and performing. J.S. also made his living primarily though performing: violinist, organist, and conductor. Mozart, contrary to what you would believe from seeing the film, lived most of his life as a freelance composer and performer: his piano concertos and Don Giovanni were all freelance pieces. Dvorak also made his living through private teaching and composing (winning of competitions as opposed to patronage). Offenbach - guess what - he made his living though composing (mainly for the theatre) with no support from patronage. Puccini - he composed opera on a commerical basis (and became rich doing so). Verdi - strangely enough he was paid by the La Scala opera house to write operas. Wagner - he as also wrote operas commercially.
None of these famous musicians were supported to any degree by patronage - they all worked hard to develop a reputation and then were paid (sometimes well, sometimes not) to perform their trade - either teaching, composing, or conducting (or a combination).
The most notable difference (and what really blows your argument out of the water) is that nobody gets patronage from the nobility until they are famous. Mozart, probably the one on my list that got most, was already famous before any nobility ever came near him. So here we have a list of musicians who became famous without major label support (or any substitute you see fit to drag in). They became famous because they were talented. And that is completely different in spirit to the record label model.
but the near-total absence of counter-examples (famous musicians who got famous without major-label support)
Let's see: J. S. Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Dvorak, Verdi, Puccini, Offenbach, Wagner, and so on. There are hundreds (thousands!) of famous musicians who became famous before the record label was even invented.
Slashdot Mirror
'Spelt' works, but it is an ancient spelling.
Not in the non-US English speaking world. A bit like "Whilst".
'Spelled', on the other hand, refers to only one thing
Spelled is ambigious too - if you spelled someone, you relieved them temporary from duties or work, or possibly put someone under a magic spell. You spelled by having arranged the letters of a word in order, but if you spelled something out you explained in great detail.
I call bullshit!
I'll see your bullshit and raise you a moron. Special Lenses for Barry Lyndon.
Less O2 for deep diving
Most mixes will be normoxic or hyperoxic. It is only when you go below about 65m do you start dabbling with hypoxic mixes. I've never been this deep and have no intentions of going - these sorts of dives take months of planning, support teams, the whole nine yards [*]and are uncommon. It's barely recreational diving anymore.
As for the accelerated deco - the trick is to get as little N2 in the gas you are breathing as possible - so the higher O2 the better (=quicker). Most people use 80% as you get a bit more margin on the depth you can go to before 02 toxicity gives you a convulsion (and you therefore die) (80% allows 10m depth, 100% allows only 6m [**]). As you normally decompress at 6m using 100% you have to be very sure of your depth control. The other reason is that it is very hard to get 100% O2 at 200bar anywhere, whereas 160bar is reasonably common (which you top with air to 200bar). Use 100% O2 as part of the ascent and you will die - instant O2 toxicity. There have been several cases of people dying from this by using the wrong bottle.
And no, your point about the common man went completely over my head - must have been having a slow day: sorry. Absolutely true though - goggles, flippers, and oxygen bottles are all a diver needs.
[*] actually, you only need all the planning and support if you want to live. Lots of people have forgone these and did the one way trip.
[**] these depths are the depth where you start playing russian roulette with O2 toxicity - as you get deeper you stand a bigger chance of getting a hit. The rule of thumb during deco is 1.6 bar you're ok, 2.6 bar your probably dead, and the chances of you being dead increase between these two marks.
Pure oxygen is NEVER used in diving (rebreathers aside.. that's another story).
Not quite true - some people (mainly deep divers) use 100% O2 for accelerated decompression.
The closest thing you get is enriched air diving, and that has a very limited depth (much less than what you can do on standard compressed air, which is what most recreational divers use). Enriched air is used to stay at shallower depths longer (you can train yourself to breathe slower, due to the higher oxygen count, and stay down longer) and is great for sightseeing on coral reefs and whatnot
Close - there are a couple of reasons for using Nitrox:
1) Reduces risk of decompressions sickness
2) Reduces Nitrogen Narcosis.
3) Reduces fatigue (could be psychological, but it's definitely true)
4) Extends no decompression bottom time (the time you spend at your target depth).
I've certainly not noticed a decrease in air consumption at depth when using nitrox.
Different gas mixes are used the deeper you go, but all of them have a lower oxygen percentage than standard air; the higher the pressure, the less actual oxygen you want in that air.
Absolutely not true - while, when you start going to silly depths, you do get what are called hypoxic mixes (less than 21% O2), these are rare. Most Trimix divers use normoxic mixes (21% 02) or hyperoxic mixes. The main reason is that if you are using a hypoxic mix you have more helium and less oxygen, and this gets really expensive. Hypoxic mixes can also make you pass out if you try breathing them in shallow water.
I'll defend that if you defend the change from "neighbour" to "neighbor".
Hang on - it is Webster's after all: it's full of poor spelling (color, thru etc)
Yr. Obedient Servant
A Brit.
There were two platinums in your sentence, BTW.
The theoretical physics bit is though to refer to his work on relativity and Brownian motion.
The reason why the award was couched in such vague terms was that, at the time, no one was sure what to make of the theory - it stood in splendid isolation: difficult to do experiments on, and difficult to integrate with the rest of physics (some things don't change). And as it was an unusual theory nobody was really sure of it's importance. E=mc^2 was yet to be demonstrated (in the shape of a mushroom cloud) and drive home exactly what its importance was.
So the Nobel prize committee hedged.
Actually, we're both confused. It was actually Geiger (of counter fame) who proposed the experiment, and Marsden who did it, although Rutherford exploited it.
Thompson, of course, discovered the electron.
Other ones missing are
JJ Thompsons backscattering of alpha particles from gold foil - changed to model of the atom from the plum pudding model to the nuclear model
Penzia and Wilson discovery of the microwave background - changed the model of the universe.
Discovery of superconductivity.
Any of Faraday's electromagnetism experiments - lead directly to Maxwell's field theory of electromagnetism, and hence to moden field based physics.
There are load more - the NYT list is poor.
Doubt it - fluids = liquids + gases (by conventional meanings).
I did read the whole article. I also studied the subject for a while when doing a physics degree at university so I am keenly aware of the context.
Michael was flat out wrong in that the article explained the debate, and the rather than supported one side of it. It is, as the article said, a matter of semantics.
Liquid means lots of things: the two most common technical meanings are 1) this flows and 2) this has no long range crystalline order. Hence by 2) glass is a liquid, and by 1) glass isn't. Hence the conclusion from the article that it is a matter of semantics.
This is ancient - see The BBC for starters.
a few minutes though - since no one else has done it - gives
S = N/2 * (2a + D*(N-1))
where a is the first term, b is the last term, D is the difference, and N is given by
(b-a)/D + 1
It creates a vibrant research community, which is good for a vibrant teaching environment. (Debatable, but at least some people think so.)
Most people, I think, would say the opposite - a vibrant teaching environment creates a vibrant research environment. Stories of the Institute for Advanced Studies (a great physicists only place, where there were no students) indicates that with nobody around asking the "obvious" questions actually creates a sterile environment.
You were banned for a month bacuase of a posting you made 17 days ago? What did they do - drag you back in a time machine after the ban was finished?
diamonds have no resale value. Naddah. Zilch. They'll sell you the shit, but damn it, they're not taking it back at any price.
Odd - second hand diamond rings certainly sell for close to new prices. Also when I bought my wife a diamond pendant in Amsterdam for our anniversary (erm 2nd, not 60th!) it came with a buy-back guarantee that was valid indefinitely for a large proportion of the price (I think 90% but it was a few years ago now).
1 watt of energy would be used up
The watt is not a unit of energy - it is a unit of power (i.e. how much energy per unit time). The unit of energy (in SI) is the Joule.
So if you dropped a 1kg weight 1 meter, 1 watt of energy would be used up.
No - it would be converted from gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy (and it would be 9.8J anyway). You don't use up energy per se (although you do (almost invariably) convert it from useful forms to less useful forms - this is entropy exerting its grip).
tacky seaside village here in Kent, England
Hmm:
Tacky - check
Seaside - check
village - check
Kent - check
6 arcades - sounds about right.
this wouldn't be Dymchurch, would it?
This means that there should be one entity on the screen (window, icon, whatever) for each document - not one application window with multiple documents hidden inside of it.
That is the way it is done in Word 2000 (and, I assume, Word XP or 2002 or whatever they have called it) - different icons on the task bar, and different windows on screen.
Excel, on the other hand, had different icons on the task bar but a single multidocument instance for all spreadsheets. Now I really don't mind either of these paradigms, but having both at the same time is annoying.
The most important thing in any interface is consistency - when I go to a word document and click the "X" in the top right hand corner I expect that document and only that document to close, which it does. When I do the same action in Excel all open spreadsheets close. This is classic bad design, and the people responsible should be dragged out back and shot pour encourager les autres - it's the only language these people understand.
Sounds good, but isn't true. The e-mail that sparked the story said Pam Warren was the survivor in question. So the e-mail was specifically talking about the ones taking over the organisation and not her. The main man in question - Mr Minns - was not actually involved in the crash, but was a long standing member of the Conservative Party (the opposition to the government). He got involved in the group in the first place as a paid advisor to the insurers of Railtrack (one of the parties thought to be responsible for the crash).
Not content with redefining your definition of musician, you have redefined what they need to have done to satisfy you: from "famous musicians who got famous without major-label support" to "one who has prospered completely outside the major-label system during the period of history in which the major-label system has existed". Which is a fairly substantial change.
In reply to your original definition acts like Genesis (originally Charisma), Pink Floyd (originally Harvest), REM (originally IRS Records) all became famous without the help of a major label.
Now, watch you don't hurt your back dragging your goalposts back under your bridge.
Ah - moving the goalposts.
Chopin made his living primarily through teaching and performing. J.S. also made his living primarily though performing: violinist, organist, and conductor. Mozart, contrary to what you would believe from seeing the film, lived most of his life as a freelance composer and performer: his piano concertos and Don Giovanni were all freelance pieces. Dvorak also made his living through private teaching and composing (winning of competitions as opposed to patronage). Offenbach - guess what - he made his living though composing (mainly for the theatre) with no support from patronage. Puccini - he composed opera on a commerical basis (and became rich doing so). Verdi - strangely enough he was paid by the La Scala opera house to write operas. Wagner - he as also wrote operas commercially.
None of these famous musicians were supported to any degree by patronage - they all worked hard to develop a reputation and then were paid (sometimes well, sometimes not) to perform their trade - either teaching, composing, or conducting (or a combination).
The most notable difference (and what really blows your argument out of the water) is that nobody gets patronage from the nobility until they are famous. Mozart, probably the one on my list that got most, was already famous before any nobility ever came near him. So here we have a list of musicians who became famous without major label support (or any substitute you see fit to drag in). They became famous because they were talented. And that is completely different in spirit to the record label model.
Let's see: J. S. Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Dvorak, Verdi, Puccini, Offenbach, Wagner, and so on. There are hundreds (thousands!) of famous musicians who became famous before the record label was even invented.