You're absolutely right. I was applying homogeneity to be a necessary condition on the solution, which implies that f(t)==exp(-k*t) ==> f(a*t) = exp(-k*a*t) != a*f(t).
"Linear" in what sense? True: you (essentially) get out the same frequencies you put into a system made up of these elements, and there is a (roughly) linear relationship between voltage across and current through these individual components. I'm a bit hesitant to really term them "linear", though, because for a nontrivial definition of "linear", any combinations of them should also be linear, and that's definitely not true: they shift around the poles and singularities of the transfer functions, and the amplitudes and phases of what you get out are definitely affected. Once a resistor is thrown into the mix, the energy of the system (at least that stored in E and B fields) is no longer conserved, and the differential equations become inherently nonlinear.
You should try LyX again. They're working hard at getting out the 1.6.0 version ( I've been compiling and installing the svn version lately and it's given me no problems thus far ). I don't know why there's such a sudden upswing of messages on LyX' user mailing list, but there has been over the last couple of months, and the developers and advanced users are unbelievably helpful and responsive.
As another respondent has stated, LyX doesn't do anything that LaTeX doesn't do, but since you can embed LaTeX code into your LyX document very easily, and just type for the rest of the work, it's very nice to work with. Plus, it integrates nicely with CAS programs, bibliography managers, etc., and is cross-platform.
That bat story is cool, but highly implausible (sonar != electromagnetic). A search online finds that a few people have postulated that it was the toxic paint used on the plane that led to the bats dying.
I hope you're being facetious, but I get this horrible feeling that you aren't. Could you please explain to me how the theory of evolution is not a valid theory as measured by standard scientific principles? It is as much a theory as the theory of gravitation, the theory of relativity, or the germ theory of disease. In order for something t be judged a scientific theory, it must do two things - mesh with a preponderance of observed evidence, and be able to reliably make predictions. The theory of evolution meets both of these criteria, while the hypothesis of Intelligent Design does neither. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it matches no known evidence. Careful. IDiocy meshes just fine with the evidence (granted, mixing Young-Earth-Creationism with ID is done, quite often, and is just stupidity piled on top of retardism). This is because, as you so rightly pointed out, it explains nothing and predicts nothing, and so proponents of it can just keep moving the goalposts. When you can move goals, meshing with evidence is no problem.
Unless you do a statistical analysis of the animals you're not likely to notice them dying of cancer, since it's a slow process. True! On the other hand, if you don't think that such have been done in the 22 years since Chernobyl, and scrutinized like crazy, then you're quite naive of the research.
Perhaps, perhaps. A recent National Geographic article about animals' communications stressed the _grammar_ inherent (the order of words definitely mattered, and not just in a "fetch the green ball and then the red ball" way) in some ways that animal owners were able to talk to their pets. Or perhaps not. Anyway, the article is here: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text/1
Everybody knows about the rivalry between Newton and Leibniz, right? If one of them had been run over by a bus^H^H^H horse, it would've been a shame, but we'd still be where we are today, give or take a few years. Even work as apparently-revolutionary as Einstein's early stuff was more a synthesis of current ideas than anything truly new. I'd love to hear some examples of what is "truly new", then. Newton (and Leibniz and Einstein) saw damned far from those giants' shoulders.
Somewhat implicit in your response is that you assume that you'd even see the inside of a public courtroom. If the administration can ignore laws which people heretofore assumed applied to them, who's to say that people allegedly caught with this "new" technology are entitled to a fair hearing? Scary stuff.
Quickly pulling out of Iraq will create an Iran which is double the size of present. There will be a Kurd fragment in the north (with a tiny bit of oil) which may or may not end up being eaten by Turkey, an arab fragment in the west (with virtually no oil, just camels) which may or may not be eaten by Saudi and a Iraq-Iran shia state in the south, west and center. I have no idea why, but that entire paragraph just made me hungry. Except for the camels bit. Now I have to go find breakfast.
Slashdot! News for nerds. Looking after your daily nutritional needs since 1997.
From the submission on slashdot:
If this proves to be true it could challenge our models of solar system formation. In the article it states that the [computer] models seem to be such a good fit to what they're seeing, that it "may actually be what happens in nature" [my paraphrase]. OK, fine. How is this any different that what's been thought for the last 30 years? Disk of swirling stuff: check. Some small inhomogeneities which get gravitationally amplified: check. Perturbing, passing massive things: check. What challenge?
Looks to me that no one is requiring continual monitoring (and reporting) of tires' conditions; only when the tire pressure falls below 25% of recommended cold pressure is a signal required to be sent (and I see nothing about being able to tell which car in a fleet has the problem from outside the car itself).
Finally, article summary should say "all NEW vehicles sold in the US" require the system, not "all vehicles sold in the US".
The final rule was published June 5, 2002. Unfortunately NHTSA proposed that if a vehicle is using a direct system (with sensors in each tire sending a signal to the dashboard) the TPMS does not have to trigger until the tire is 25 percent below the recommended cold psi. An indirect TPMS (that runs off the anti-lock braking system) does not have to trigger until the tire is 30 percent below the recommended cold psi for that tire. TIA is strongly opposed to NHTSA's supposed "safety" regulation which in effect allows the motoring public to drive on severely underinflated tires. TIA has supported a petition that NHTSA mandate reserve inflation pressure in tires to offset the TPMS rule. [See letter to NHTSA supporting petition.]
Also (much more difficult to control) what the "phase" of it is. Lasers achieve tremendous frequency-uniformity, which is quite nice, but the amazing thing is that their photons are essentially mostly phase-locked, so each is identical to the last. It means that one can get tremendous power a large distance with them. But lasers are inherently producers of large populations of photons (in a sense, you need a lot of photons to control the mechanisms which produce more photons) at the same time. The ability to produce single photons of a given frequency and random phase is relatively easy; producing single frequencies and single phases is much more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
You're absolutely right. I was applying homogeneity to be a necessary condition on the solution, which implies that f(t)==exp(-k*t) ==> f(a*t) = exp(-k*a*t) != a*f(t).
"Linear" in what sense? True: you (essentially) get out the same frequencies you put into a system made up of these elements, and there is a (roughly) linear relationship between voltage across and current through these individual components. I'm a bit hesitant to really term them "linear", though, because for a nontrivial definition of "linear", any combinations of them should also be linear, and that's definitely not true: they shift around the poles and singularities of the transfer functions, and the amplitudes and phases of what you get out are definitely affected. Once a resistor is thrown into the mix, the energy of the system (at least that stored in E and B fields) is no longer conserved, and the differential equations become inherently nonlinear.
You should try LyX again. They're working hard at getting out the 1.6.0 version ( I've been compiling and installing the svn version lately and it's given me no problems thus far ). I don't know why there's such a sudden upswing of messages on LyX' user mailing list, but there has been over the last couple of months, and the developers and advanced users are unbelievably helpful and responsive.
As another respondent has stated, LyX doesn't do anything that LaTeX doesn't do, but since you can embed LaTeX code into your LyX document very easily, and just type for the rest of the work, it's very nice to work with. Plus, it integrates nicely with CAS programs, bibliography managers, etc., and is cross-platform.
That bat story is cool, but highly implausible (sonar != electromagnetic). A search online finds that a few people have postulated that it was the toxic paint used on the plane that led to the bats dying.
There, I fixed that for you.
Perhaps, perhaps. A recent National Geographic article about animals' communications stressed the _grammar_ inherent (the order of words definitely mattered, and not just in a "fetch the green ball and then the red ball" way) in some ways that animal owners were able to talk to their pets. Or perhaps not. Anyway, the article is here: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text/1
For the girls, the odds are good, but the goods are odd.
No we're not. And if it didn't, well, that's totally hawt.
That's because Hell has good marketing and efficient fiscal expenditure.
I don't know, but you can bet there will be "bad car analogies" analogies, mentions of some hot chick and grits, and complains about moderators.
Too late: you already replied.
So you're basically saying that FIRST POS! is what most of us go for here?
Magic 8 Ball told me to.
Somewhat implicit in your response is that you assume that you'd even see the inside of a public courtroom. If the administration can ignore laws which people heretofore assumed applied to them, who's to say that people allegedly caught with this "new" technology are entitled to a fair hearing? Scary stuff.
Slashdot! News for nerds. Looking after your daily nutritional needs since 1997.
gardyloo is feeling... Agreement with the parent post!
Yes, but if you lived in Britain 200 years ago, and you're reading this, you're also crazy.
Oh, yes. Thank you. We'd all forgotten about the wheelchair thing.
http://www.tireindustry.org/pdf/TREAD_Act_Summary.pdf
Looks to me that no one is requiring continual monitoring (and reporting) of tires' conditions; only when the tire pressure falls below 25% of recommended cold pressure is a signal required to be sent (and I see nothing about being able to tell which car in a fleet has the problem from outside the car itself).
Finally, article summary should say "all NEW vehicles sold in the US" require the system, not "all vehicles sold in the US". The final rule was published June 5, 2002. Unfortunately NHTSA
proposed that if a vehicle is using a direct system (with sensors in each
tire sending a signal to the dashboard) the TPMS does not have to trigger
until the tire is 25 percent below the recommended cold psi. An indirect
TPMS (that runs off the anti-lock braking system) does not have to
trigger until the tire is 30 percent below the recommended cold psi for
that tire. TIA is strongly opposed to NHTSA's supposed "safety"
regulation which in effect allows the motoring public to drive on severely
underinflated tires. TIA has supported a petition that NHTSA mandate
reserve inflation pressure in tires to offset the TPMS rule. [See letter to
NHTSA supporting petition.]
Also (much more difficult to control) what the "phase" of it is. Lasers achieve tremendous frequency-uniformity, which is quite nice, but the amazing thing is that their photons are essentially mostly phase-locked, so each is identical to the last. It means that one can get tremendous power a large distance with them. But lasers are inherently producers of large populations of photons (in a sense, you need a lot of photons to control the mechanisms which produce more photons) at the same time. The ability to produce single photons of a given frequency and random phase is relatively easy; producing single frequencies and single phases is much more difficult.