Well part of the difference is that a Canadian/Imperial Gallon is 4.5 litres whereas an American Gallon is only 3.8 litres due to their less than pint-sized pints.
copyright licenses are granted by area, and importing into a different area for re-sale is not necessarily legal.
Copyright licenses are granted to publishers who print copies of the book. A purchaser does not need a copyright license because they are not printing any copies. As a purchaser how can I possibly be held to the terms of a contract signed between two external parties about which I have no knowledge?
Sorry - should have included more context. The full sentence reads:
All elementary particles have an antiparticle of opposite charge (for
example, an electron and a positron); the meeting of a particle with its
antiparticle results in the annihilation of both.
How can you be sure that the same is not also true of the author whose material you are reading? At least with a teacher there is some assurance that they are doing a decent job and know what they are talking about. With DIY internet resources who knows how reliable the material you are reading really is.
In particular what the paper referees were smoking when they let the first sentence of the paper:
All elementary particles have an antiparticle of opposite charge
get published. That would be "all" except for the photon, gluon and Z which are their own anti-particle and possibly the neutrino which might actually be a majorana fermion (we just don't know yet - underground experiments are looking into this). The webpage article is no better because it gets hopelessly confused about the difference between a fundamental particle and a condensed matter excitation. However at least that did not have to pass a referee - the journal Science should be ashamed!
If they were copyrighted, wouldn't the assembly and machine language folks get the last laugh? I mean, copyright lasts nearly forever now in the United States
If that is the case then I would be more worried that England will be suing for violation of copyright due to the US' use of an unauthorized derivative of English.;-)
So how do you manage without yours?;-) Books, multimedia etc. can certainly go along way but you need someone to challenge your understanding, until we have AI computers, that requires a human to interpret what a student says and point out the flaws in their reasoning.
as long as the arrangement, structure and alignment is different
They seem to be claiming that the structure is copied though i.e. you select one of their texts and the site collects "open source" information which covers the same material in a similar fashion. What is so ironic about this is that, at least where 1st year physics text books are concerned, the publisher's text books have almost exactly identical structures - sometimes even down to the level of chapter and section numbers. So, since I am certain that these publishers would never do what they seem to be accusing this company of doing, I can only presume that they must all pay a licensing fee for use of this format.
It's a neurotoxin that causes paralysis by disrupting a neurotransmitter that's present in insects but not in warm-blooded animals.
However that does not mean that it is harmless for us. According to wikipedia it is rated as moderately toxic when ingested by mammals and affects the thyroid of rats and the livers of dogs in sufficiently high concentrations.
Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?
Very likely yes. This article lays out the european limits for it in food as ranging from 0.02 mg/kg in eggs to 3.0 mg/kg in hops. While this is not proof that the US FDA has a non-zero limit usually Europe tends to be more conservative with food regulations (at least they are with things like growth hormones).
While the pesticide stuff is pretty obvious, I'm more skeptical about the HFCS link
I know this is Slashdot but if you read the article the explanation becomes very clear. Some bees are fed with HFCS and the syrup itself is derived from crops treated with the pesticide and so it is present in low levels in the syrup and apparently only very low levels are needed to generate CCD.
I'm supposed to be motivated by a mention on a sharepoint site?
No, you are supposed to be motivated to make sure that your project gets funding instead of being just stuck on a sharepoint site. This is actually a very smart thing to do - it gives credit to the submitter for at least trying and puts the idea out there to see if others can improve on it. At the same time the "reward" (such as it is) is far less than a successful idea so it does not eliminate the motivation for success. Seems like a very clever system...I'm sure whoever came up with the idea for it got more than a mention on a sharepoint site!
Should I shoot it down and stop myself from getting attacked with an air-to-ground missile, or should I not shoot it down and stop myself from getting a lungful of plutonium dust.
...or I could shoot it down, create a nuclear environmental disaster for which I blame the US and some segment of the population which I carefully moved into the area will get a lung full of plutonium dust (and who knows, if I shoot enough down and there is enough plutonium...).
Having a nuclear powered drone circling over the head of some mad dictator who does not care for his international reputation nor for his people does not seem like a good idea and, if they do decide to do it, I really hope that they do not use some weapon grade material like plutonium!
Except that Canada's population is much smaller than that of the U.S. and is not nearly as heterogeneous that of the U.S..
I would argue that Canada's population is just as heterogeneous as the US, if not more so given that we have a higher rate of immigration per capita. According to this the US had 14 million immigrants from 2000 to 2010 where as this says that Canada had 250,640 immigrate in 2001 alone. If this were kept up for the same ten year period it would mean ~2.5 million immigrants but for a country with a tenth of the population of the US so to have the same rate per capita the US would need ~25 million immigrants. So, assuming the diversity of immigrants is comparable Canada should be more diverse than the US.
In terms of overall population size having a lower total population should not make a difference at the levels we are considering. However the Canadian population density is far less than the US. We have a larger area with a tenth of the population although the distribution is not even. This means that it should be more expensive for us to run a healthcare system since we will need to have more hospitals per capita to serve remote locations.
The main reason that we have a longer average life expectancy is because everyone has access to healthcare. This means that even those who, under a US system, could not afford a doctor can get treatment. What would be an interesting, but potentially controversial, comparison would be to comare the life expectancy of Americans with healthcare plans to Canadians with a similar demographic. I suspect, but do not know that with that comparison the US may fair better.
If you were actually entering US airspace then fine - the US gets to set its own rules. However explain to me how you enter US airspace between Calgary and London. I have taken this flight many times and the closest you come to US airspace is when you take off/land in Calgary. At no point are you any closer than that and since you fly over Edmonton and Red Deer on the way in if you needed to divert from Calgary you would end up there not over the US border like you might for Vancouver which is extremely close to the border.
If the UK and Canadian governments want to collaborate with the US and ban people on the US no flight list (on the basis that we don't want people likely to be linked to terrorism on our planes any more than they do) then that's fine - but it should be our choice, not the US', if the flight has no reasonable probability of going into US airspace during normal operation. I was hoping that this was an April Fool but since the article is dated 26th March I sadly think it has to be true.
nonsense. The hobbits were from his childhood, where the local fields (around Hall Green) were being slowly built upon.
I'm not convinced. Tolkien spent some time up in Yorkshire at Leeds University. Given that Leeds in the 1920s had more than a few mills and that the Shire has the three farthings like Yorkshire has three ridings it seems likely that the shire has at least some basis in Yorkshire. Certainly when I read the books for the first time growing up in Yorkshire my first thought was the the farthings were just like the ridings.
Thanks for the link but I'm not sure I want to do the Tolkien Trail though - the last thing I want to start coming to mind is the "Two Towers of Edgbaston" next time I read the books!;-)
Of course they said in the abstract that their measurement indicates faster-than-light neutrinos: that's what they measured, so that's what they said.
Exactly - so they claimed observation of an FTL neutrino which is what the OP was claiming they did not do. Given the evidence presented in the paper I thought that their claim was extremely premature. While it later emerged that they had done a better job on systematics than the paper suggested finding this out at a press conference is not really good science. As the saying goes "amazing claims require amazing evidence" and their evidence was mediocre at best and contradicted by other results even at the time of publication e.g. SN1987A.
No - this means that they do not want to say what the implications of their result is for theory. It does not mean that they are not claiming the FTL neutrino result. This is because they don't want to say "relativity is clearly wrong" just in case some clever theorist figures out a way to make FTL neutrinos consistent with relativity.
They specifically did not make the claim that neutrinos were travelling faster than light.
That is NOT what the sentence you quote says. It says that they are not attempting to make any theoretical interpretation or implication of their result that the neutrinos got there faster than light i.e. they are not going to try and figure out the implications of their result. They specifically make the FTL neutrino claim in the paper, just read the abstract, and I quote:
An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (57.8 \pm 7.8 (stat.)+8.3-5.9 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.37 \pm 0.32 (stat.) (sys.)) \times10-5.
Sorry, I suppose I should have suggested that you read the paper carefully;-). My initial reaction when I heard the news was that it was the press blowing the claims out of all proportion then I read the paper and was frankly astounded that they would make such a claim based on the flimsy evidence they presented in the first paper (the paper I linked is their second one which is better but still not good in terms of details).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, we'll get rid of your gray goo with our black hole ;-)
In this seafloor habitat dwelling we obey the laws of thermal dynamics!
Really? Everyone else usually obeys the laws of thermodynamics...at least on average.
Well part of the difference is that a Canadian/Imperial Gallon is 4.5 litres whereas an American Gallon is only 3.8 litres due to their less than pint-sized pints.
copyright licenses are granted by area, and importing into a different area for re-sale is not necessarily legal.
Copyright licenses are granted to publishers who print copies of the book. A purchaser does not need a copyright license because they are not printing any copies. As a purchaser how can I possibly be held to the terms of a contract signed between two external parties about which I have no knowledge?
The FBI can never go bankrupt
Not technically true, for details see "Greece".
All elementary particles have an antiparticle of opposite charge (for example, an electron and a positron); the meeting of a particle with its antiparticle results in the annihilation of both.
which requires a distinct antiparticle.
How can you be sure that the same is not also true of the author whose material you are reading? At least with a teacher there is some assurance that they are doing a decent job and know what they are talking about. With DIY internet resources who knows how reliable the material you are reading really is.
All elementary particles have an antiparticle of opposite charge
get published. That would be "all" except for the photon, gluon and Z which are their own anti-particle and possibly the neutrino which might actually be a majorana fermion (we just don't know yet - underground experiments are looking into this). The webpage article is no better because it gets hopelessly confused about the difference between a fundamental particle and a condensed matter excitation. However at least that did not have to pass a referee - the journal Science should be ashamed!
If they were copyrighted, wouldn't the assembly and machine language folks get the last laugh? I mean, copyright lasts nearly forever now in the United States
If that is the case then I would be more worried that England will be suing for violation of copyright due to the US' use of an unauthorized derivative of English. ;-)
they allow upto 64GB on desktop models
Are you sure? The Z80 chipset only used to allow 64kB and the Z77 is presumably three models earlier.
If you require a human body, you've failed.
So how do you manage without yours? ;-) Books, multimedia etc. can certainly go along way but you need someone to challenge your understanding, until we have AI computers, that requires a human to interpret what a student says and point out the flaws in their reasoning.
as long as the arrangement, structure and alignment is different
They seem to be claiming that the structure is copied though i.e. you select one of their texts and the site collects "open source" information which covers the same material in a similar fashion. What is so ironic about this is that, at least where 1st year physics text books are concerned, the publisher's text books have almost exactly identical structures - sometimes even down to the level of chapter and section numbers. So, since I am certain that these publishers would never do what they seem to be accusing this company of doing, I can only presume that they must all pay a licensing fee for use of this format.
It's a neurotoxin that causes paralysis by disrupting a neurotransmitter that's present in insects but not in warm-blooded animals.
However that does not mean that it is harmless for us. According to wikipedia it is rated as moderately toxic when ingested by mammals and affects the thyroid of rats and the livers of dogs in sufficiently high concentrations.
Sorry - got the source of the limits wrong - those limits are from the US EPA so there are acceptable, non-zero limits in the US for food.
Is the FDA on board with pesticide being passed thru at detectable levels in a supposedly simple processed food product?
Very likely yes. This article lays out the european limits for it in food as ranging from 0.02 mg/kg in eggs to 3.0 mg/kg in hops. While this is not proof that the US FDA has a non-zero limit usually Europe tends to be more conservative with food regulations (at least they are with things like growth hormones).
While the pesticide stuff is pretty obvious, I'm more skeptical about the HFCS link
I know this is Slashdot but if you read the article the explanation becomes very clear. Some bees are fed with HFCS and the syrup itself is derived from crops treated with the pesticide and so it is present in low levels in the syrup and apparently only very low levels are needed to generate CCD.
I'm supposed to be motivated by a mention on a sharepoint site?
No, you are supposed to be motivated to make sure that your project gets funding instead of being just stuck on a sharepoint site. This is actually a very smart thing to do - it gives credit to the submitter for at least trying and puts the idea out there to see if others can improve on it. At the same time the "reward" (such as it is) is far less than a successful idea so it does not eliminate the motivation for success. Seems like a very clever system...I'm sure whoever came up with the idea for it got more than a mention on a sharepoint site!
Should I shoot it down and stop myself from getting attacked with an air-to-ground missile, or should I not shoot it down and stop myself from getting a lungful of plutonium dust.
Having a nuclear powered drone circling over the head of some mad dictator who does not care for his international reputation nor for his people does not seem like a good idea and, if they do decide to do it, I really hope that they do not use some weapon grade material like plutonium!
Especially when the CPS makes the decision whether to prosecute or not, not the police.
Except that Canada's population is much smaller than that of the U.S. and is not nearly as heterogeneous that of the U.S..
I would argue that Canada's population is just as heterogeneous as the US, if not more so given that we have a higher rate of immigration per capita. According to this the US had 14 million immigrants from 2000 to 2010 where as this says that Canada had 250,640 immigrate in 2001 alone. If this were kept up for the same ten year period it would mean ~2.5 million immigrants but for a country with a tenth of the population of the US so to have the same rate per capita the US would need ~25 million immigrants. So, assuming the diversity of immigrants is comparable Canada should be more diverse than the US.
In terms of overall population size having a lower total population should not make a difference at the levels we are considering. However the Canadian population density is far less than the US. We have a larger area with a tenth of the population although the distribution is not even. This means that it should be more expensive for us to run a healthcare system since we will need to have more hospitals per capita to serve remote locations.
The main reason that we have a longer average life expectancy is because everyone has access to healthcare. This means that even those who, under a US system, could not afford a doctor can get treatment. What would be an interesting, but potentially controversial, comparison would be to comare the life expectancy of Americans with healthcare plans to Canadians with a similar demographic. I suspect, but do not know that with that comparison the US may fair better.
Countries yes, but states no.
If you were actually entering US airspace then fine - the US gets to set its own rules. However explain to me how you enter US airspace between Calgary and London. I have taken this flight many times and the closest you come to US airspace is when you take off/land in Calgary. At no point are you any closer than that and since you fly over Edmonton and Red Deer on the way in if you needed to divert from Calgary you would end up there not over the US border like you might for Vancouver which is extremely close to the border.
If the UK and Canadian governments want to collaborate with the US and ban people on the US no flight list (on the basis that we don't want people likely to be linked to terrorism on our planes any more than they do) then that's fine - but it should be our choice, not the US', if the flight has no reasonable probability of going into US airspace during normal operation. I was hoping that this was an April Fool but since the article is dated 26th March I sadly think it has to be true.
nonsense. The hobbits were from his childhood, where the local fields (around Hall Green) were being slowly built upon.
I'm not convinced. Tolkien spent some time up in Yorkshire at Leeds University. Given that Leeds in the 1920s had more than a few mills and that the Shire has the three farthings like Yorkshire has three ridings it seems likely that the shire has at least some basis in Yorkshire. Certainly when I read the books for the first time growing up in Yorkshire my first thought was the the farthings were just like the ridings.
;-)
Thanks for the link but I'm not sure I want to do the Tolkien Trail though - the last thing I want to start coming to mind is the "Two Towers of Edgbaston" next time I read the books!
Of course they said in the abstract that their measurement indicates faster-than-light neutrinos: that's what they measured, so that's what they said.
Exactly - so they claimed observation of an FTL neutrino which is what the OP was claiming they did not do. Given the evidence presented in the paper I thought that their claim was extremely premature. While it later emerged that they had done a better job on systematics than the paper suggested finding this out at a press conference is not really good science. As the saying goes "amazing claims require amazing evidence" and their evidence was mediocre at best and contradicted by other results even at the time of publication e.g. SN1987A.
No - this means that they do not want to say what the implications of their result is for theory. It does not mean that they are not claiming the FTL neutrino result. This is because they don't want to say "relativity is clearly wrong" just in case some clever theorist figures out a way to make FTL neutrinos consistent with relativity.
They specifically did not make the claim that neutrinos were travelling faster than light.
That is NOT what the sentence you quote says. It says that they are not attempting to make any theoretical interpretation or implication of their result that the neutrinos got there faster than light i.e. they are not going to try and figure out the implications of their result. They specifically make the FTL neutrino claim in the paper, just read the abstract, and I quote:
An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (57.8 \pm 7.8 (stat.)+8.3-5.9 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muon neutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.37 \pm 0.32 (stat.) (sys.)) \times10-5.
Sorry, I suppose I should have suggested that you read the paper carefully ;-). My initial reaction when I heard the news was that it was the press blowing the claims out of all proportion then I read the paper and was frankly astounded that they would make such a claim based on the flimsy evidence they presented in the first paper (the paper I linked is their second one which is better but still not good in terms of details).