These should get you through all the information you'll need about chemistry, and then some.
- "Chemical Principles." Richard E. Dickerson, H. B. Gray, M. Y. Darensbourg.
- "Molecules." Peter W. Atkins.
- "The Periodic Kingdom: A Journey into the Land of the Chemical Elements." Peter W. Atkins.
- "Designing the Molecular World: Chemistry at the Frontier." Philip Ball.
- "General Chemistry." Linus Pauling.
- "Chemistry of the Elements." Norman N. Greenwood and A. Earnshaw.
- "Chemistry: Principles and Applications." Peter W. Atkins.
- "Chemical Curiosities: Spectacular Experiments and Inspired Quotes." H. W. Roesky, K. Mockel, Roald Hoffman.
- "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics." David R. Lide (editor-in-chief) and H.P.R. Frederikse (assoc.ed.)
Isn't that sort of like Turing's Halting Problem? Where like the only computer than can calculate the lesser computer's Busy Beaver sequence is the higher one, and so one and so one like Cantor's infinities?
Um, that's never been proven. The only forces that have been unified are the electric and magnetic (well, okay, that happened in the 19th century, nothing big, we call it electromagnetism) and the weak nuclear force (electroweak force). Furthermore, gravity has never been given a solid theoretical basis. The graviton is a proposed boson which has never been shown to actually exist (a boson is a force carrying particle -- the strong nuclear force uses the gluon, the weak nuclear force uses the W and Z bosons, and electromagnetism uses the photon). The only theoretical basis we really have to explain quantum gravitational interactions are the string theories, which require 11 dimensions to work (and as mathematically "beautiful" these theories might be, they are ridiculously complicated). Well, that's all.
It seems that your computer is obviously the one with the problems. First of all, alt-tab is always the same, the last item you selected on alt-tab moves up to the front, they don't "jump around in a seemingly random way." Also, I hope you realize Windows XP is based off the same core as Windows NT/2000 not 9x. Many of your other claims are also incorrect. You say that START.EXE doesn't return control to the prompt. Just try "start calc." Finally, as to the extra spaces put in when you copy-paste into a window. First, that happens in 98 too. Second, it's because of the text, not Microsoft. To verify this, type a couple of lines with a letter each on notepad, and copy that and paste it into EDIT in a command box. No spaces to the left...
- Entropix
First, I noticed some discussion as to Quantum Physics being far more complicated than Classical Physics, so Occum's Razor doesn't really apply -- well, actually it might not be. It turns out there are many relationships that exist between current string theories and 11-dimensional supergravity, suggesting that these various theories (Heterotic 0, Heterotic E, I, IIA, IIB) are all expressions of the same thing. Perhaps a single M-theory exists that can describe our universe.
Second, I'd like to mention that this talk about FTL travel is futile. Besides the problems with mass and energy and time slowing, there are plenty of other options that actual physicists such as Stephen Hawking (i.e. not ones holding up a lightbulb they call "The Doom Machine") have discussed. For example, there is the bending of space-time fabric to move quickly from one point to another. There is even the possibility of so-called wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges being constructed and prevented from being closed by a negative energy force such as that is present in the Casimir effect. Of course, this is predominantly theoretical, and at least a couple hundred years off in this author's humble opinion.
Oh, and anyone interested in Drake's Equation (a.k.a. the Sagan equation), you can try Eric Weisstein's World of Physics at: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/DrakeEqu ation.html [scienceworld.wolfram.com]
- Entropix
I hate ads everywhere as much as the next guy, but I actually see a real benefit here. First, there's the obvious benefits to the product companies and the networks. However, you might be overlooking a potential benefit that may arise for the consumer. Consider this: you are a network exec who has to program for a 30-minute time slot. You have no extra ads to plug in because all the companies have paid to have popup ads in designated programs. So what happens? No network will put in off-air time for infomercials in primetime, else the other networks might pick up on valuable ratings. Likewise, networks will likely not pack multiple 18 to 20 minute shows together since the development cost would be the same as current 30-minute shows for each, and thus they would spend more. So what would happen? Perhaps we'd actually be getting full 30-minute shows or close to it -- something that hasn't been seen on television since PBS or the 1950's.
- Entropix
It is the duty of the most powerful nation to protect its own interests as well as the interests of freedom and democracy. What's wrong with policing the world and undoing unjustices? It's noble; and besides, who else is going to do it but the United States? No superpowers are left. Even China cannot compare anymore.
Certainly you mean.00000000000000001 x 10^(-20), since.00000000000000001 x 10^(20) would mean that AOL is charging 1000 cents, or $10 a webpage, which is quite a scary thought (although, given the status of AOL, likely to happen -- maybe MSN will do it if all that monopoly stuff doesn't quite go their way).
Slashdot Mirror
These should get you through all the information you'll need about chemistry, and then some.
- "Chemical Principles." Richard E. Dickerson, H. B. Gray, M. Y. Darensbourg.
- "Molecules." Peter W. Atkins.
- "The Periodic Kingdom: A Journey into the Land of the Chemical Elements." Peter W. Atkins.
- "Designing the Molecular World: Chemistry at the Frontier." Philip Ball.
- "General Chemistry." Linus Pauling.
- "Chemistry of the Elements." Norman N. Greenwood and A. Earnshaw.
- "Chemistry: Principles and Applications." Peter W. Atkins.
- "Chemical Curiosities: Spectacular Experiments and Inspired Quotes." H. W. Roesky, K. Mockel, Roald Hoffman.
- "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics." David R. Lide (editor-in-chief) and H.P.R. Frederikse (assoc.ed.)
That last book is up to its 80th edition or so.
- Entropix
Isn't that sort of like Turing's Halting Problem? Where like the only computer than can calculate the lesser computer's Busy Beaver sequence is the higher one, and so one and so one like Cantor's infinities?
- Entropix
Um, that's never been proven. The only forces that have been unified are the electric and magnetic (well, okay, that happened in the 19th century, nothing big, we call it electromagnetism) and the weak nuclear force (electroweak force). Furthermore, gravity has never been given a solid theoretical basis. The graviton is a proposed boson which has never been shown to actually exist (a boson is a force carrying particle -- the strong nuclear force uses the gluon, the weak nuclear force uses the W and Z bosons, and electromagnetism uses the photon). The only theoretical basis we really have to explain quantum gravitational interactions are the string theories, which require 11 dimensions to work (and as mathematically "beautiful" these theories might be, they are ridiculously complicated). Well, that's all.
- Entropix
It seems that your computer is obviously the one with the problems. First of all, alt-tab is always the same, the last item you selected on alt-tab moves up to the front, they don't "jump around in a seemingly random way." Also, I hope you realize Windows XP is based off the same core as Windows NT/2000 not 9x. Many of your other claims are also incorrect. You say that START.EXE doesn't return control to the prompt. Just try "start calc." Finally, as to the extra spaces put in when you copy-paste into a window. First, that happens in 98 too. Second, it's because of the text, not Microsoft. To verify this, type a couple of lines with a letter each on notepad, and copy that and paste it into EDIT in a command box. No spaces to the left... - Entropix
First, I noticed some discussion as to Quantum Physics being far more complicated than Classical Physics, so Occum's Razor doesn't really apply -- well, actually it might not be. It turns out there are many relationships that exist between current string theories and 11-dimensional supergravity, suggesting that these various theories (Heterotic 0, Heterotic E, I, IIA, IIB) are all expressions of the same thing. Perhaps a single M-theory exists that can describe our universe. Second, I'd like to mention that this talk about FTL travel is futile. Besides the problems with mass and energy and time slowing, there are plenty of other options that actual physicists such as Stephen Hawking (i.e. not ones holding up a lightbulb they call "The Doom Machine") have discussed. For example, there is the bending of space-time fabric to move quickly from one point to another. There is even the possibility of so-called wormholes or Einstein-Rosen bridges being constructed and prevented from being closed by a negative energy force such as that is present in the Casimir effect. Of course, this is predominantly theoretical, and at least a couple hundred years off in this author's humble opinion. Oh, and anyone interested in Drake's Equation (a.k.a. the Sagan equation), you can try Eric Weisstein's World of Physics at: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astronomy/DrakeEqu ation.html [scienceworld.wolfram.com]
- Entropix
I hate ads everywhere as much as the next guy, but I actually see a real benefit here. First, there's the obvious benefits to the product companies and the networks. However, you might be overlooking a potential benefit that may arise for the consumer. Consider this: you are a network exec who has to program for a 30-minute time slot. You have no extra ads to plug in because all the companies have paid to have popup ads in designated programs. So what happens? No network will put in off-air time for infomercials in primetime, else the other networks might pick up on valuable ratings. Likewise, networks will likely not pack multiple 18 to 20 minute shows together since the development cost would be the same as current 30-minute shows for each, and thus they would spend more. So what would happen? Perhaps we'd actually be getting full 30-minute shows or close to it -- something that hasn't been seen on television since PBS or the 1950's. - Entropix
But they may or may not be really named that!
It is the duty of the most powerful nation to protect its own interests as well as the interests of freedom and democracy. What's wrong with policing the world and undoing unjustices? It's noble; and besides, who else is going to do it but the United States? No superpowers are left. Even China cannot compare anymore.
Certainly you mean .00000000000000001 x 10^(-20), since .00000000000000001 x 10^(20) would mean that AOL is charging 1000 cents, or $10 a webpage, which is quite a scary thought (although, given the status of AOL, likely to happen -- maybe MSN will do it if all that monopoly stuff doesn't quite go their way).