The answer is that without the publicity and promotion that the major labels provide, you simply can't get the exposure necessary to really 'make it big'.
The vast and overwhelming majority of artists don't "make it big." Ever. According to the RIAA, one reason CDs are so expensive is because the small percentage of artists who do make it big have to make enough money for the recording industry to pay for all the promotion of the much larger percentage of artists will never sell enough product to recoup the RIAA's investment.
Of course, that's what the RIAA says. A less Bizarro way of putting that would be "Labels spend too much developing and promoting new acts because they overestimate how much the public is willing to pay for CDs."
No more than not tying yourself down before going to sleep at night depends on the assumption that gravity won't turn itself off sometime during the night.
For my senior EE project, I built a railgun. Used aluminmum bar stock for the rails, milled out a channel for a ball bearing, injected the bearing with a paintball gun. The power supply was a bank of electrolytics in parallel totalling 48 mF at 600V, so around 9 kJ total.
Didn't look anywhere near so impressive as this guy's.
And like most very famous history stories, it's wrong. Eli Whitney is correctly credited with the idea of interchangeable parts, but he never actually got it to work. His muskets certainly weren't made with interchangeable parts; the first firearm made that way was the breechloading Hall rifle, in 1826, and it wasn't firmly established as an industrial process until the Springfield Armory did it in 1840.
A breeder reactor produces plutonium. That's all that's required.
A commercial breeder reactor fissions U-235, just like ordinary PWRs. But surrounding the core is a blanket of non-chain-reaction-sustaining U-238. The U-238 captures the thermal neutrons coming from the U-235 fission reaction, and transmutes to Pu-239, which is also usable as fission fuel.
So what happens to Wal-Mart now that they've submitted the claim that their prices were protected by copyright under penalty of perjury? Surely even though they've withdrawn the claim, they don't get to "take back" the fact that they perjured themselves?
Nope. Won't help. Even if the surface is very reflective, the small amount of energy the mirror absorbs will be enough to burn off/through that portion of the reflective surface, and then you don't have a mirror anymore.
And making the surface very reflective isn't easy. High-energy mirrors are expensive and delicate, and an artillery tube doesn't sound like anything close to their preferred environment. Even if it was clean before you fired, that mirror's going to get dirty real quick.
I certainly don't remember them doing that, outside of a Tom Clancy novel. They did demonstrate that they could use an IR laser to dazzle the photoreceptors of a satellite in orbit, but they damned sure did not destroy one with even a laser, let alone a "particle beam." Shooting at another nation's military hardware is something of an act of war,you know.
As it begins it's decent, itmay speed up with gravity, or slow down even more, depending on the air-resistence.
It's still going to closely approximate an ideal paraboloid, except at the terminal stage of flight where it's going to travel more vertically than ideal equations predict. In addition, the shell travels way up high, easily visible to radar, where most missiles people on the surface worry about tend to lose themselves in ground clutter, SR/IR/ICBMs aside.
Second, a shell goes much faster than a rocket.
No, not really, especially during the terminal stage when the shell's maximum speed is limited by terminal velocity; a shell gets one big push at the start of its flight, and is purely passive afterwards (well, excepting rocket-assist and basebleed, but still). A rocket continues to accelerate as long as the motor burns, and can reach speeds far in excess of artillery shells, which can routinely be seen with the naked eye as they hurtle downrange. The trouble here is that "rocket" spans such a wide range; a rocket can be a nice slow fat subsonic target like a Silkworm, or a Mach 2.5+ evasive-action-capable SS-N-22. HARM missiles have a top speed of 2300kph, ferinstance, a good bit faster than terminal velocity of most things that only travel ballistically.
But in either case, shooting down a shell in flight is really nothing new. The Brits had Sea Dart back in the Falklands, and that was capable of shooting down 4.7" artillery shells. Shooting down the shell is *not* new, or exciting or innovative. Doing it with a laser is.
Proximity fuses detonate their shells at an optimum height; the terminal velocity of an artillery fragment isn't very high, it's the fact that it's being driven into you by a bursting charge that's the dangerous part.
If the shell detonates below this height, the resultant spread of the fragments will be limited. If it detonates above this height, then the fragments will both be spread over a wider area and lose more energy to air resistance.
In either case, you're better off than if the shell detonates at the proper altitude.
like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Fair and open trial?
You mean like the trial of in the UK in 1986 of Eric Butler, a 56-year old BP executive who was attacked in a London subway car? His assailants tried to strangle him and started beating his head against the door, and nobody came to his aid. He unsheathed an ornamental blade in his walking stick and stabbed one of his attackers in the stomach. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
Or like the English homeowner in 1994 who used a toy handgun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home while he called the police, only to be arrested upon their arrival for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate? Or elderly woman who in the following year fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a gang who were threatening her, only to be arrested for "putting someone in fear"?
Or maybe you meant Tony Martin, who after having his house burgled 6 times in a village with no local police force used a shotgun to kill one burglar and wounded another, only to receive a life sentence for defending his life and property? And, of course, the wounded man who is now out of jail has received 5,000 pounds in legal assistance from the government in order to sue Martin.
You know, putting aside the fact that an armed populace doesn't denote lynch mobs and vigilante justice, but rather the ability and willingness of a citizenry to defend itself against injustice, a heavily-armed American lynch mob certainly does sound like an entity that's more familiar with the concept of justice than most European governments I can think of.
I did read it again. Apparently, I understood the words it contained. It doesn't grant rights; it recognizes them. The notion that rights exist only because a piece of paper says they do is rather horrifying. The Constitution exists to spell out the specific powers of the government, not the specific rights of the citizenry.
Here, look
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Translation: Just because we mentioned a few rights doesn't mean others don't exist. They do, because this document isn't the source of rights.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Translation: This document says what the government can do. If it doesn't say the Feds can do it, then the Feds can't do it. If it says the states can't do something, than the states can't do it. Other than that, let the people decide how they want their communities to be run.
Yeesh. Before making pronouncements about what the Constitution says, maybe you should try understanding it .
a Theory can be proved right meaning it can be fully explained by just reasoning, and in relation to a set of axioms.
No. You are confusing formal logic with science. Science is a process of falsification, of disproof. Science can only operate by testing to destruction; repeated experiments can lend support to a theory, even overwhelming support as in the case of GR and QED, but no amount of experimentation will truly confirm either.
There is no difference between a "natural law" and a theory
Well, yes, there is.
In science, a "theory" is not "basically what the majority of scientists believe to be the truth." A "theory" is a coherent attempt to explain a diverse set of physical phenomena as arising from a discrete set of rules. Newtonian mechanics is a theory which attempts to explain the motion of planetary bodies, cannonballs, and automobile accidents as a consequence of a small set of laws. Laws are "smaller" than theories.
As for relativity being "only a theory", again assuming you mean "just a hypothesis". In a word, no!
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't raided the Kennedy Compound yet.
Perhaps they're scared of what they might find...
The answer is that without the publicity and promotion that the major labels provide, you simply can't get the exposure necessary to really 'make it big'.
The vast and overwhelming majority of artists don't "make it big." Ever. According to the RIAA, one reason CDs are so expensive is because the small percentage of artists who do make it big have to make enough money for the recording industry to pay for all the promotion of the much larger percentage of artists will never sell enough product to recoup the RIAA's investment.
Of course, that's what the RIAA says. A less Bizarro way of putting that would be "Labels spend too much developing and promoting new acts because they overestimate how much the public is willing to pay for CDs."
They'll just go with the marketing that they are fed. Oh. Just like they did with DIVX, right?
No more than not tying yourself down before going to sleep at night depends on the assumption that gravity won't turn itself off sometime during the night.
Nemesis reinforced just how important it is to remember to backup your Data.
Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week, drive safely.
You're definitely confusing cause and effect. It was out of the theaters so fast because it bombed.
That is 40% out of 20 years.
And less than 2% out of the total number of launches. And?
None of these high-voltage devices can even hold a candle to The World's Only Ass-Kicking Machine.
For my senior EE project, I built a railgun. Used aluminmum bar stock for the rails, milled out a channel for a ball bearing, injected the bearing with a paintball gun. The power supply was a bank of electrolytics in parallel totalling 48 mF at 600V, so around 9 kJ total.
Didn't look anywhere near so impressive as this guy's.
I really want to buy some pornographic materials, but the needle on my pornograph has been broken for a long time.
Actually, this is also inaccurate. The speed at which the pull propagates through the string is limited by the speed of sound in the material.
Therefore, relativity also tells us that there no are infinitely rigid materials.
And like most very famous history stories, it's wrong. Eli Whitney is correctly credited with the idea of interchangeable parts, but he never actually got it to work. His muskets certainly weren't made with interchangeable parts; the first firearm made that way was the breechloading Hall rifle, in 1826, and it wasn't firmly established as an industrial process until the Springfield Armory did it in 1840.
I remember going to a picnic with my father and going home with my mother.
Uh...no.
A breeder reactor produces plutonium. That's all that's required.
A commercial breeder reactor fissions U-235, just like ordinary PWRs. But surrounding the core is a blanket of non-chain-reaction-sustaining U-238. The U-238 captures the thermal neutrons coming from the U-235 fission reaction, and transmutes to Pu-239, which is also usable as fission fuel.
So what happens to Wal-Mart now that they've submitted the claim that their prices were protected by copyright under penalty of perjury? Surely even though they've withdrawn the claim, they don't get to "take back" the fact that they perjured themselves?
Nope. Won't help. Even if the surface is very reflective, the small amount of energy the mirror absorbs will be enough to burn off/through that portion of the reflective surface, and then you don't have a mirror anymore.
And making the surface very reflective isn't easy. High-energy mirrors are expensive and delicate, and an artillery tube doesn't sound like anything close to their preferred environment. Even if it was clean before you fired, that mirror's going to get dirty real quick.
I certainly don't remember them doing that, outside of a Tom Clancy novel. They did demonstrate that they could use an IR laser to dazzle the photoreceptors of a satellite in orbit, but they damned sure did not destroy one with even a laser, let alone a "particle beam." Shooting at another nation's military hardware is something of an act of war ,you know.
As it begins it's decent, itmay speed up with gravity, or slow down even more, depending on the air-resistence.
It's still going to closely approximate an ideal paraboloid, except at the terminal stage of flight where it's going to travel more vertically than ideal equations predict. In addition, the shell travels way up high, easily visible to radar, where most missiles people on the surface worry about tend to lose themselves in ground clutter, SR/IR/ICBMs aside.
Second, a shell goes much faster than a rocket.
No, not really, especially during the terminal stage when the shell's maximum speed is limited by terminal velocity; a shell gets one big push at the start of its flight, and is purely passive afterwards (well, excepting rocket-assist and basebleed, but still). A rocket continues to accelerate as long as the motor burns, and can reach speeds far in excess of artillery shells, which can routinely be seen with the naked eye as they hurtle downrange. The trouble here is that "rocket" spans such a wide range; a rocket can be a nice slow fat subsonic target like a Silkworm, or a Mach 2.5+ evasive-action-capable SS-N-22. HARM missiles have a top speed of 2300kph, ferinstance, a good bit faster than terminal velocity of most things that only travel ballistically.
But in either case, shooting down a shell in flight is really nothing new. The Brits had Sea Dart back in the Falklands, and that was capable of shooting down 4.7" artillery shells. Shooting down the shell is *not* new, or exciting or innovative. Doing it with a laser is.
Proximity fuses detonate their shells at an optimum height; the terminal velocity of an artillery fragment isn't very high, it's the fact that it's being driven into you by a bursting charge that's the dangerous part.
If the shell detonates below this height, the resultant spread of the fragments will be limited. If it detonates above this height, then the fragments will both be spread over a wider area and lose more energy to air resistance.
In either case, you're better off than if the shell detonates at the proper altitude.
I'm glad you've chosen the fairest and least extraordinary examples to illustrate your point.
Much like the reference to lynch mobs as a fair and least extraordinary example of a populace capable of self-defense?
Out of curiousity, are you European or American?
I might answer that if you explain how the validity of an argument is affected by the nationality of the one making it.
like I've always said: you can't beat a heavily-armed lynch mob for a meticulous and professional criminal investigation leading to a fair and open trial.
Fair and open trial?
You mean like the trial of in the UK in 1986 of Eric Butler, a 56-year old BP executive who was attacked in a London subway car? His assailants tried to strangle him and started beating his head against the door, and nobody came to his aid. He unsheathed an ornamental blade in his walking stick and stabbed one of his attackers in the stomach. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
Or like the English homeowner in 1994 who used a toy handgun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home while he called the police, only to be arrested upon their arrival for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate? Or elderly woman who in the following year fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a gang who were threatening her, only to be arrested for "putting someone in fear"?
Or maybe you meant Tony Martin, who after having his house burgled 6 times in a village with no local police force used a shotgun to kill one burglar and wounded another, only to receive a life sentence for defending his life and property? And, of course, the wounded man who is now out of jail has received 5,000 pounds in legal assistance from the government in order to sue Martin.
You know, putting aside the fact that an armed populace doesn't denote lynch mobs and vigilante justice, but rather the ability and willingness of a citizenry to defend itself against injustice, a heavily-armed American lynch mob certainly does sound like an entity that's more familiar with the concept of justice than most European governments I can think of.
Read it again.
I did read it again. Apparently, I understood the words it contained. It doesn't grant rights; it recognizes them. The notion that rights exist only because a piece of paper says they do is rather horrifying. The Constitution exists to spell out the specific powers of the government, not the specific rights of the citizenry.
Here, look
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Translation: Just because we mentioned a few rights doesn't mean others don't exist. They do, because this document isn't the source of rights.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Translation: This document says what the government can do. If it doesn't say the Feds can do it, then the Feds can't do it. If it says the states can't do something, than the states can't do it. Other than that, let the people decide how they want their communities to be run.
Yeesh. Before making pronouncements about what the Constitution says, maybe you should try understanding it .
and the rights granted to me by my country's constitution.
I'd take your civic-mindedness at a higher value if you understood that the Constitution doesn't grant rights.
Pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th amendments.
a Theory can be proved right meaning it can be fully explained by just reasoning, and in relation to a set of axioms.
No. You are confusing formal logic with science. Science is a process of falsification, of disproof. Science can only operate by testing to destruction; repeated experiments can lend support to a theory, even overwhelming support as in the case of GR and QED, but no amount of experimentation will truly confirm either.
There is no difference between a "natural law" and a theory
Well, yes, there is.
In science, a "theory" is not "basically what the majority of scientists believe to be the truth." A "theory" is a coherent attempt to explain a diverse set of physical phenomena as arising from a discrete set of rules. Newtonian mechanics is a theory which attempts to explain the motion of planetary bodies, cannonballs, and automobile accidents as a consequence of a small set of laws. Laws are "smaller" than theories.
As for relativity being "only a theory", again assuming you mean "just a hypothesis". In a word, no!
This bit, however, is entirely correct.