Agreed but the fact remains that the local police do not seem to be involved at all which suggests that there is no crime which would allow this under EU law.
Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.
That's complete rubbish. Federal law actively discriminates against people who are not US citizens and furthermore even divides non-US citizens up based on nationality: Canadian's don't need to be fingerprinted and photographed not do they need an ESTA online visa, Europeans and a few other nationalities get fingerprinted, photographed and have to apply for an online ESTA visa, other nationalities have to have full visas. Hence if two people turn up at the border with the identical paperwork one might be admitted and the other denied based solely on their nationality.
As a non-US citizen, I've no problem with this - every country does the same - but let's not pretend that there is no discrimination based solely on nationality because it is frequently the grounds on which most discrimination is made and for very sensible reasons.
Such a reaction just shows ignorance of an accepted standard
The problem with this is how do you define an accepted standard? If you found that a petrol station only gave you 0.9 litres of petrol everytime you bought what the pump said was a litre you would feel cheated even if the station told you that this was their accepted standard, indeed even if every petrol station started doing this suddenly you would still feel cheated because it is not the standard unit that you accept.
This is why, since medieval times, we have had laws that define the accepted standards for units. You are not free to redefine the length of a metre as you see fit you are required to follow the standard set out in the law. The reasons for these laws are extremely sensible and there is absolutely no valid reason for the construction industry not to follow them.
Units have legal definitions to prevent vendors from redefining their own units as they please. This was what happened back in medieval times and is why we have standard units now. It might be easy to remember that the cross-sections - but not lengths (how inconsistent is that!) - use non-standard definitions in construction but suppose petrol stations started doing that for litres? or electrical utilities redefined the kWh? or estate agents redefined the square metre etc. We would rapidly get back to where we were in medieval times with nobody really knowing how much of anything they were buying because everyone has their own definition of each unit.
Just because only the construction industry do this and it is easy to remember is not a valid excuse. What they are doing is illegal under the trading standards of many countries and it's about time someone called them on it.
It reminds me of the kid's song, "The old Lady that swallowed the fly", where a woman kept swallowing larger and large animals to catch the animal she swallowed earlier.
Except in this version after swallowing the spider the old lady will probably decide that now she can swallow all the flies she wants, the spider over eats on flies and dies and she now has a fly problem ten times the size of the one she started with.
That might expose them to a civil lawsuit in Ireland but that would probably be easier to deal with than the 800 pound gorilla that is the US federal govt.
It's more likely to be a criminal lawsuit and expose them to the 850 pound gorilla that is the EU commission. The EU has a slightly larger economy than the US (by some measures) and an established record of swingeing fines on large US companies which ignore EU laws. Microsft itself has already been fined 1.3 billion euros.
Ask the court in the other country to help in that matter.
The problem is that this can't work because what the US court wants is illegal under EU data protection laws. It would be like country X asking to extradite someone in the US because they criticised their leader. The US court would refuse, regardless of any extradition treaty, because it would be an illegal violation of free speech rights.
However, the US does have intelligence sharing agreements so I would have expected that the better route to this data would be to use those by having the local intelligence forces request the data locally and then have them share the pertinent details with the US - this is how it seems to work in Canada and the UK. The fact that they did not go this route suggests that their need for the data probably does not hold up to scrutiny.
A precedent like that would trigger what is effectively a trade war, with other countries making laws that if you want to do business in their country you must not do business in the US
Nobody will pass laws like that they will just enforce the laws they already have. If Microsoft share the data stored in the EU with the US government I expect this will put them in violation of the EU data protection laws. The result will be fines and probably civil damage cases from those affected. This will severely damage large, global US companies making them far less competitive with local companies and also certainly lead to the US's current idiot in charge making wild accusations about the EU and others discriminating against US companies when, in reality, it's the direct consequence of the US trying to impose its laws on others backfiring and taking out US companies abroad.
These dimensions have been industry standards for 60 years or more
So how long do you have to cheat someone before it's ok to continue doing so? Clearly 60 years seems to be enough but, given Volkwagen's case, a few years is not.
Destructive aeroelastic flutter is an _example_ of resonance.
No it's not - there is no oscillating force driving the system at a particular frequency which is what always used to confuse me when I was a kid and we learnt it at school. While the results may look the same aeroelastic flutter is a self-excitation which is fundamentally different from a forced resonance. It's only a "pedantic distinction" in the same way that differentiating between mass and weight is a pedantic distinction. In most everyday situations in the Earth's approximately constant gravitational field, they may seem effectively the same but they are fundamentally different quantities.
Lastly my source is not Wikipedia: have a look this paper from 1991 which is in a referred journal (although one aimed at physics education, not research).
If an individual sabotaged a company's property in the same way that Comcast is alleged to have done they would be had up on criminal charges and likely be looking at prison time. This acts as a pretty good deterrent against such behaviour and in cases where it does not everyone at least gets to see that there are significant consequences for seriously bad choices.
If the allegations are true then massive fines against the company will do little to hurt any individuals who are actually responsible for the decision to behave this way and will instead hurt investors and rank-and-file employees in the company collapses. The best deterrent is to make those responsible for the decisions criminally liable for them too. Do not let them hide behind the company: they made the decision they should have to deal with the consequences.
This is what is so nauseating about modern corporate behaviour. It's not that companies misbehave - they are made up of humans so it will always happen - what is terrible is that those responsible for the behaviour make out like bandits while the investors and rank-and-file employees are left carrying the can.
Let's just make sure that the open source book is GOOD.
It does not have to be good it just has to be better than the books from the publishers. Many of these are of increasingly poor quality and, for physics, often have major omissions or simplifications to the point of being wrong. One of the worst examples is where a lot of books categorically state that resonance occurs exactly at the natural frequency of vibration for an oscillator and fake plots to show this over a wide range of damping.
Sadly though the open source texts I have seen are even worse. OpenStax makes all the mistakes above plus more e.g. it uses the Tacoma Narrows bridge as an example of resonance (it's actually aeroelastic flutter which is anti-damping) while ignoring London's Millenium footbridge which is an excellent example. It also came out with a series of support videos which were so full of the conceptual errors that you see students make I had to wonder if they were prepared by a struggling student instead of a faculty member.
We could just teach Physics and Calc out of 'Principia'...but the fail rate would skyrocket.
Good luck teaching first-year special relativity out of it, not to mention all the wave-like properties of light like diffraction. Even in a first-year physics course, there is a lot of physics which Newton had no clue about.
If so then that means the lawsuit presented by Murray has legitimate grounds, doesn't it?
No, because the truth is a defence. Hence if it is clear that he is presenting his own opinion the only way you can win a defamation case would be to prove that he was actually lying about his own opinion. While I agree with your point that his show does involve a lot of journalism - frankly a lot more than the typical US news - it is really more like an extremely well-informed opinion article in a newspaper and you cannot sue a newspaper for having an opinion you do not agree with.
If the issue is really air density then how do CRJ planes take off from Denver? Assuming that this page has the physics correctly accounted for then the density of air at Phoenix (331m above sea level) at 49C is 1.059 kg/m^3 whereas the air density in Denver (1600m) is only 0.9978 kg/m^3...and that is if you assume the same air pressure - the density in Denver will actually be a lower than this because the pressure is less.
Perhaps one way to design around this would is to build a longer runway but if that is how they coped in Denver it seems strange that they did not do this in Phoenix given that the effect is far smaller for temperature vs. height so the extension required would be less and 49C temperatures while extreme do not seem to be beyond imagining for Arizona where the record is 53C.
The real motive by Coinbase is probably a fear that they'll be accused of helping facilitate criminal activity.
I really do not understand this. I've never heard of a bank closing someone's account because they used the money in it to pay a ransom. Surely if there is no danger to the bank from facilitating payment of a ransom in fiat currency why would there be any danger to Coinbase for doing the same in Bitcoin? The people committing the crime here are those extorting the ransom, not those who pay it whatever your position may be on paying ransoms.
Is this really so surprising? I know quite a few physicists (and some armchair physicists) who have long believed the standard model to be incomplete.
We know for certain that the Standard Model is incomplete because it cannot explain gravity. It it also missing Dark Matter and a large enough asymmetry between matter and anti-matter to explain the universe being full of matter. However, none of these explains why this result is not surprising.
The reason that this result is not surprising is because of the number of Standard Model measurements which experiments like LHCb, Babar and Belle make. There are literally thousands of ways in which these experiments have tested the Standard Model and when you make 1000 measurements finding one that over 3 sigma from expectations is not at all unsurprising - in fact you would expect 3.
Now 4 sigma is better because only about 1 in 15,000 measurements will, on average, be this far apart if the Standard Model applies. However, here they have combined multiple experiments but without the respective collaborations being involved. This means it is highly possible that they have failed to combined systematic errors correctly because they are restricted to using only published data. Most combined results come from working groups involving all the collaborations involved e.g. ATLAS+CMS combined results at the LHC, D0+CDF combined results from the Tevatron etc. which can redo parts of the analysis to combine errors properly.
So while it is possible they may be on to something it is far from certain and this is hardly a major result that will elicit much excitement. This is probably why it was published in Nature! While I know this is an important journal for many fields, for particle physics it is largely irrelevant. All the important results in the field are published in journals like Phys Lett B, PRL, Phys Rev D, JHEP etc.
To be fair between 1939-1945 that position was probably useful.
Are you seriously suggesting that in a time when radar, radio and telephones existed that it would be useful for some guy with a spyglass to sit on the top of some cliffs ring a bell if they saw German ships or planes invading?
Seriously? Is there anything else they are preparing for that has already come and gone?
Well reputedly in 1803 the British government prepared for the potential invasion of Napoleon by creating a civil service position for someone to stand on the white cliffs of Dover with a spyglass and ring a bell if they saw Napoleon coming. The position was finally cancelled in 1945, 124 years after Napoleon died.
Vets EARNED the use of all of those professional services, materials, and people's skills by putting their lives on the line
If that's the criteria then I hope you also provide free health care for those who serve in police and fire services even after they no longer serve in them.
Do you not take every deduction you can? Do you offer to pay more tax than you have to?
No, but if I had an income of several hundred million dollars or more and aggressively interpreted the tax law so that I ended up paying next to nothing in tax then I would expect to get audited to within an inch of my life. Somehow, strangely, that never seems to happen to large companies so their potentially dodgy, extremely aggressive interpretations are never really tested in court.
It is this extremely aggressive interpretation of tax law which needs to be taken to task. Simply taking them to court, even if you lose, is likely to curb this behaviour since it shows you are not asleep at the wheel and defending their tax choices in court costs money which provides some motivation to not steer too close to the edge of legality.
No - it sounds like the next iPhone will be Apple's fantasy fulfilled since it could have no ports at all! I expect they will work on removing the screen next.
The second amendment isn't restricting the right to well regulated militias, but rather citing the need for militia as a reason to allow people to keep and bear arms. That is not a limit upon who can keep and bear arms.
The problem with this is that we now have nuclear arms. So if you are really advocating for no limit on keeping and bearing arms you must support the right of everyone in the US to keep and bear nuclear arms. The US and likely the world would not survive such a situation for very long and, unsurprisingly nobody, not even the NRA (at least as far as I am aware) think that US citizens should have the right to bear nuclear arms. Hence everyone already agrees that there should be limits put on this right and the only question remains where that limit should be put.
Since the original aim was to secure the state that would perhaps be a good guideline to follow. Having everyone out there wandering around armed today does nothing for the security of the state because today you have an army which has access to nuclear arms. In fact having easy access to guns leads to less security because terrorists and others attacking the state can easily get their hands on them. The recent terrorist attacks in London show this well - the terrorists were reduced to using vehicles and knives. If the same thing had happened in the US it would have been vehicles and guns and the death toll would almost certainly have been a lot higher.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed but the fact remains that the local police do not seem to be involved at all which suggests that there is no crime which would allow this under EU law.
Unless he *is* one of them - deep cover
With his skin tone I'd hardly call it deep cover.
Federal law states people cannot be denied entry to the United States purely on the basis of their nationality.
That's complete rubbish. Federal law actively discriminates against people who are not US citizens and furthermore even divides non-US citizens up based on nationality: Canadian's don't need to be fingerprinted and photographed not do they need an ESTA online visa, Europeans and a few other nationalities get fingerprinted, photographed and have to apply for an online ESTA visa, other nationalities have to have full visas. Hence if two people turn up at the border with the identical paperwork one might be admitted and the other denied based solely on their nationality.
As a non-US citizen, I've no problem with this - every country does the same - but let's not pretend that there is no discrimination based solely on nationality because it is frequently the grounds on which most discrimination is made and for very sensible reasons.
Such a reaction just shows ignorance of an accepted standard
The problem with this is how do you define an accepted standard? If you found that a petrol station only gave you 0.9 litres of petrol everytime you bought what the pump said was a litre you would feel cheated even if the station told you that this was their accepted standard, indeed even if every petrol station started doing this suddenly you would still feel cheated because it is not the standard unit that you accept.
This is why, since medieval times, we have had laws that define the accepted standards for units. You are not free to redefine the length of a metre as you see fit you are required to follow the standard set out in the law. The reasons for these laws are extremely sensible and there is absolutely no valid reason for the construction industry not to follow them.
How the fuck is this "cheating" anyone?
Units have legal definitions to prevent vendors from redefining their own units as they please. This was what happened back in medieval times and is why we have standard units now. It might be easy to remember that the cross-sections - but not lengths (how inconsistent is that!) - use non-standard definitions in construction but suppose petrol stations started doing that for litres? or electrical utilities redefined the kWh? or estate agents redefined the square metre etc. We would rapidly get back to where we were in medieval times with nobody really knowing how much of anything they were buying because everyone has their own definition of each unit.
Just because only the construction industry do this and it is easy to remember is not a valid excuse. What they are doing is illegal under the trading standards of many countries and it's about time someone called them on it.
It reminds me of the kid's song, "The old Lady that swallowed the fly", where a woman kept swallowing larger and large animals to catch the animal she swallowed earlier.
Except in this version after swallowing the spider the old lady will probably decide that now she can swallow all the flies she wants, the spider over eats on flies and dies and she now has a fly problem ten times the size of the one she started with.
That might expose them to a civil lawsuit in Ireland but that would probably be easier to deal with than the 800 pound gorilla that is the US federal govt.
It's more likely to be a criminal lawsuit and expose them to the 850 pound gorilla that is the EU commission. The EU has a slightly larger economy than the US (by some measures) and an established record of swingeing fines on large US companies which ignore EU laws. Microsft itself has already been fined 1.3 billion euros.
Ask the court in the other country to help in that matter.
The problem is that this can't work because what the US court wants is illegal under EU data protection laws. It would be like country X asking to extradite someone in the US because they criticised their leader. The US court would refuse, regardless of any extradition treaty, because it would be an illegal violation of free speech rights.
However, the US does have intelligence sharing agreements so I would have expected that the better route to this data would be to use those by having the local intelligence forces request the data locally and then have them share the pertinent details with the US - this is how it seems to work in Canada and the UK. The fact that they did not go this route suggests that their need for the data probably does not hold up to scrutiny.
A precedent like that would trigger what is effectively a trade war, with other countries making laws that if you want to do business in their country you must not do business in the US
Nobody will pass laws like that they will just enforce the laws they already have. If Microsoft share the data stored in the EU with the US government I expect this will put them in violation of the EU data protection laws. The result will be fines and probably civil damage cases from those affected. This will severely damage large, global US companies making them far less competitive with local companies and also certainly lead to the US's current idiot in charge making wild accusations about the EU and others discriminating against US companies when, in reality, it's the direct consequence of the US trying to impose its laws on others backfiring and taking out US companies abroad.
These dimensions have been industry standards for 60 years or more
So how long do you have to cheat someone before it's ok to continue doing so? Clearly 60 years seems to be enough but, given Volkwagen's case, a few years is not.
Destructive aeroelastic flutter is an _example_ of resonance.
No it's not - there is no oscillating force driving the system at a particular frequency which is what always used to confuse me when I was a kid and we learnt it at school. While the results may look the same aeroelastic flutter is a self-excitation which is fundamentally different from a forced resonance. It's only a "pedantic distinction" in the same way that differentiating between mass and weight is a pedantic distinction. In most everyday situations in the Earth's approximately constant gravitational field, they may seem effectively the same but they are fundamentally different quantities.
Lastly my source is not Wikipedia: have a look this paper from 1991 which is in a referred journal (although one aimed at physics education, not research).
If an individual sabotaged a company's property in the same way that Comcast is alleged to have done they would be had up on criminal charges and likely be looking at prison time. This acts as a pretty good deterrent against such behaviour and in cases where it does not everyone at least gets to see that there are significant consequences for seriously bad choices.
If the allegations are true then massive fines against the company will do little to hurt any individuals who are actually responsible for the decision to behave this way and will instead hurt investors and rank-and-file employees in the company collapses. The best deterrent is to make those responsible for the decisions criminally liable for them too. Do not let them hide behind the company: they made the decision they should have to deal with the consequences.
This is what is so nauseating about modern corporate behaviour. It's not that companies misbehave - they are made up of humans so it will always happen - what is terrible is that those responsible for the behaviour make out like bandits while the investors and rank-and-file employees are left carrying the can.
Let's just make sure that the open source book is GOOD.
It does not have to be good it just has to be better than the books from the publishers. Many of these are of increasingly poor quality and, for physics, often have major omissions or simplifications to the point of being wrong. One of the worst examples is where a lot of books categorically state that resonance occurs exactly at the natural frequency of vibration for an oscillator and fake plots to show this over a wide range of damping.
Sadly though the open source texts I have seen are even worse. OpenStax makes all the mistakes above plus more e.g. it uses the Tacoma Narrows bridge as an example of resonance (it's actually aeroelastic flutter which is anti-damping) while ignoring London's Millenium footbridge which is an excellent example. It also came out with a series of support videos which were so full of the conceptual errors that you see students make I had to wonder if they were prepared by a struggling student instead of a faculty member.
We could just teach Physics and Calc out of 'Principia'...but the fail rate would skyrocket.
Good luck teaching first-year special relativity out of it, not to mention all the wave-like properties of light like diffraction. Even in a first-year physics course, there is a lot of physics which Newton had no clue about.
If so then that means the lawsuit presented by Murray has legitimate grounds, doesn't it?
No, because the truth is a defence. Hence if it is clear that he is presenting his own opinion the only way you can win a defamation case would be to prove that he was actually lying about his own opinion. While I agree with your point that his show does involve a lot of journalism - frankly a lot more than the typical US news - it is really more like an extremely well-informed opinion article in a newspaper and you cannot sue a newspaper for having an opinion you do not agree with.
If the issue is really air density then how do CRJ planes take off from Denver? Assuming that this page has the physics correctly accounted for then the density of air at Phoenix (331m above sea level) at 49C is 1.059 kg/m^3 whereas the air density in Denver (1600m) is only 0.9978 kg/m^3...and that is if you assume the same air pressure - the density in Denver will actually be a lower than this because the pressure is less.
Perhaps one way to design around this would is to build a longer runway but if that is how they coped in Denver it seems strange that they did not do this in Phoenix given that the effect is far smaller for temperature vs. height so the extension required would be less and 49C temperatures while extreme do not seem to be beyond imagining for Arizona where the record is 53C.
The real motive by Coinbase is probably a fear that they'll be accused of helping facilitate criminal activity.
I really do not understand this. I've never heard of a bank closing someone's account because they used the money in it to pay a ransom. Surely if there is no danger to the bank from facilitating payment of a ransom in fiat currency why would there be any danger to Coinbase for doing the same in Bitcoin? The people committing the crime here are those extorting the ransom, not those who pay it whatever your position may be on paying ransoms.
Is this really so surprising? I know quite a few physicists (and some armchair physicists) who have long believed the standard model to be incomplete.
We know for certain that the Standard Model is incomplete because it cannot explain gravity. It it also missing Dark Matter and a large enough asymmetry between matter and anti-matter to explain the universe being full of matter. However, none of these explains why this result is not surprising.
The reason that this result is not surprising is because of the number of Standard Model measurements which experiments like LHCb, Babar and Belle make. There are literally thousands of ways in which these experiments have tested the Standard Model and when you make 1000 measurements finding one that over 3 sigma from expectations is not at all unsurprising - in fact you would expect 3.
Now 4 sigma is better because only about 1 in 15,000 measurements will, on average, be this far apart if the Standard Model applies. However, here they have combined multiple experiments but without the respective collaborations being involved. This means it is highly possible that they have failed to combined systematic errors correctly because they are restricted to using only published data. Most combined results come from working groups involving all the collaborations involved e.g. ATLAS+CMS combined results at the LHC, D0+CDF combined results from the Tevatron etc. which can redo parts of the analysis to combine errors properly.
So while it is possible they may be on to something it is far from certain and this is hardly a major result that will elicit much excitement. This is probably why it was published in Nature! While I know this is an important journal for many fields, for particle physics it is largely irrelevant. All the important results in the field are published in journals like Phys Lett B, PRL, Phys Rev D, JHEP etc.
I don't know the original source of the story nor do I have any means to check its veracity. Hence my use of the term "reputedly".
To be fair between 1939-1945 that position was probably useful.
Are you seriously suggesting that in a time when radar, radio and telephones existed that it would be useful for some guy with a spyglass to sit on the top of some cliffs ring a bell if they saw German ships or planes invading?
Seriously? Is there anything else they are preparing for that has already come and gone?
Well reputedly in 1803 the British government prepared for the potential invasion of Napoleon by creating a civil service position for someone to stand on the white cliffs of Dover with a spyglass and ring a bell if they saw Napoleon coming. The position was finally cancelled in 1945, 124 years after Napoleon died.
Simply switching to a 64 bit linux will be enough for linux users to avoid the bug
Technically that's not a fix, it just delays the problem. Admittedly it's a delay of about 292 billion years but still...
Vets EARNED the use of all of those professional services, materials, and people's skills by putting their lives on the line
If that's the criteria then I hope you also provide free health care for those who serve in police and fire services even after they no longer serve in them.
Do you not take every deduction you can? Do you offer to pay more tax than you have to?
No, but if I had an income of several hundred million dollars or more and aggressively interpreted the tax law so that I ended up paying next to nothing in tax then I would expect to get audited to within an inch of my life. Somehow, strangely, that never seems to happen to large companies so their potentially dodgy, extremely aggressive interpretations are never really tested in court.
It is this extremely aggressive interpretation of tax law which needs to be taken to task. Simply taking them to court, even if you lose, is likely to curb this behaviour since it shows you are not asleep at the wheel and defending their tax choices in court costs money which provides some motivation to not steer too close to the edge of legality.
No - it sounds like the next iPhone will be Apple's fantasy fulfilled since it could have no ports at all! I expect they will work on removing the screen next.
The second amendment isn't restricting the right to well regulated militias, but rather citing the need for militia as a reason to allow people to keep and bear arms. That is not a limit upon who can keep and bear arms.
The problem with this is that we now have nuclear arms. So if you are really advocating for no limit on keeping and bearing arms you must support the right of everyone in the US to keep and bear nuclear arms. The US and likely the world would not survive such a situation for very long and, unsurprisingly nobody, not even the NRA (at least as far as I am aware) think that US citizens should have the right to bear nuclear arms. Hence everyone already agrees that there should be limits put on this right and the only question remains where that limit should be put.
Since the original aim was to secure the state that would perhaps be a good guideline to follow. Having everyone out there wandering around armed today does nothing for the security of the state because today you have an army which has access to nuclear arms. In fact having easy access to guns leads to less security because terrorists and others attacking the state can easily get their hands on them. The recent terrorist attacks in London show this well - the terrorists were reduced to using vehicles and knives. If the same thing had happened in the US it would have been vehicles and guns and the death toll would almost certainly have been a lot higher.