Funny thing is, you rarely here the big investment banks taking any blame here. However, had they been more worried about their shareholders value than their end-of-year bonuses, then they would never have extended the telecoms the credit necessary to over bid the licenses. This was half the problem, cheap credit. Not surprisingly, this is coming back to haunt the investment banks, now that the market has realized that many of these loans will be non-performers.
This may well end up being one of the textbook examples of how over-investment in the business cycle causes a crushing down-cycle. Over investment is almost always due to cheap credit; thank you very much 'Sir' Alan Greenspan.
I know this might shock some Slashdotters, but console gaming has always had a bigger marketshare than PC gaming (current estimates put the PC market at about 1/10th the console market).
Read the fine print. the comparison is PC to console software sales markets, not pc to total combined market.
While we are on the subject of gravity, the effective gravity you would feel while in flight at mach 7.6 at 250000 ft is about 90% g. This happens because of two effects, the reduced gravity from the height (about 25% of the effect int his case) and the centripital forces due to your rotating reference frame (the other 75%).
You cannot be serious! Clearly R_a refers to the ionization channel through which the spark has crossed several meters of air. All the rest of air has a resistance/meter considerably greater than that of the ionization channel and considerably greater than your body and can be effectively ignored. So as I said before, we are dealing with a voltage divider. If you like, we could be a little more specific. Instead we will treat the spark gap like a diode with a very high turn on voltage, I=exp(b*E)=V_p/R_p. Since V_a+V_p=V_t. We know that exp(b*V_a/x)=(V_t-V_a)*R_p. Solve for V_a then I and V_p. This is still very much a voltage divider but now with a nonlinear resister. If you wanted to you could add in your parallel component but you will quickly find that almost no current goes through it due to the obvious path preference through the human body.
Re:Yes, but you're forgetting the air resistance
on
Build Your Own Tesla Coil
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I would be polite to point out that you are building a voltage divider. with zero volts at ground. 10,000 volts at the terminal. There are two resisters, the person (R_p) and the air (R_a). So the current I=10,000/(R_p+R_a). If we model R_a as linear with distance, then for some proportionality constant (c), R_a=c*x.
So then, I=10,000/(R_p+c*x). I->10,000/(c*x) for large x, and I-> 10,000/R_p for small x.
This is neither an exponential drop off nor a constant current.
Astute readers have by now noticed a slight problem with this scenario. Despite my well-equipped basement, I don't happen to possess a means for suspending an Earth-mass object a few feet above another Earth-mass object (i.e. the Earth itself). There's not going to be a heck of a lot I can do about the fact that my black hole is going to shoot down towards the earth under a combined force of 2G and a momentum that would require numbers with "E" in them to describe. (I had better not be standing beneath it, if I want to avoid rather nasty tidal effects as the black hole travels through my body - that killed a guy on Mars once.)
As has been pointed out previously, the local attraction is going to be far cry different than what the mini BH experiences with respect to the Earth. The attraction between the two will be very nearly m_BH*g, not 2*m_BH*g. Using 1.472 x 10^11 kg from a prior alienmole calculation, we have 1.44E12 N of force, or 1.47E8 tonnes. Which is about ten times the weight of a single world trade center tower. Charge the BH up with 1.44E12 coulombs of charge, i.e. 4E8 amp-hours or 9 kiloamp-years. Spin that puppy up. And IIRC there are static charge configurations for which charged spinning object will have a stable region of levitation. So all that is required is a giant dielectric to embed a coulomb of the given charge configuration, s.t. the immense negative electric field does not cause a breakdown and that is capable of supporting the weight of the BH w/o being crushed. Then a supporting structure would need to be built to cradle the dielectric and root it to bedrock. So it is not possible within your well-equipped basement, but within the realm of possibility for a massive civil construction project.
Don't worry about being new, apparently the people who modded you up are new as well, and are not yet familiar with the understood practice of leaving serious comments at +1.
No, because most companies reserve the "right" to change the terms of the EULA, without notification, at ANY TIME.
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
Try the tax code, enourmous government beaurocray, budget deficit, pork spending, etc. These were all manufactured with your tacit consent at best. There was no contract you signed. Terms are changed anytime, without your approval, etc. It isn't like M$ doesn't have ample precident here from Congress.
The problem with the opposite sex is they aren't yet aware of this study which shows semen intake makes girls happier. Finally the proof we've all been waiting for.
Wait a minute, I'm an idiot. Obviously color has nothing to do with animals and humans detecting black vs. white things. AND PANDAS ARE BLACK AND WHITE!! Therefore, of course color is not needed in these sex education films...
That depends on whether it is being displyed on a B&W TV or a color TV. On a color TV, white is a linear combination of RGB. Even if it appears white to us, it may still appear some other color to the Pandas. For a B&W TV, I believe the spectrum for white is more like natural light, in which case it may apear the same.
Fair enough, that particular approach will not satisfy the second question for all cases. I can think of no constraint for why a solution satisfying the second question could not be found for 13 balls; afterall, there are only 26 possible cases for the 13 ball problem, while 3 weightings has 27 possible outcomes. Certainly, given a single reference coin, the 14 coin method w/reference can be used to find a complete solution for the 13 ball problem.
I wrote a lengthy analysis for a colleague not long ago, but I'm too lazy to format it for '/.' so you can find it here.
For the record I find that this problem is too difficult for an interviewing scenario unless the interviewee is familar with the problem or very very smart they are not going to find the correct solution in a short amount of time. Besides describing all the cases for the complete solution takes a few minutes. As you will see, the answer (3 weighings) can be found from an information approach without knowing the complete solution.
2) this is a classic brain teaser. What you do is flip the first switch and leave it one for a minute or so. Then flip it back off and flip the second switch. Walk into the room. If the light is on, then the second switch is the one. Otherwise check and see if the bulb is hot...
3) build arches up from the tops of the square walls, if done correctly they will intersect the dome appropriately.
your questions,
1) Make a tetrahedron (thats a new one to me, I like it.)
2,3) Cut the cake into quarters in the usual manner. Now, line up the four peices into a row cut down the row into eighths?
My turn:
Given cake and a knife only, what is the best way to cut a cake between three people so that no person can complain about receiving an unfairly small portion? And what is the minimun number of cuts necessary?
3. Umm, why not use 13 balls and make it more challenging (answer 3 weighings).. better yet give them a known fair ball and they can do 14. On the other hand, if it is known only that one ball may or may not be lighter or heavier, then 12 balls is the best you can do with three weighings... unless you have a fair ball in which case it is 13. I always thought this was a funny question because it shows the interviewer doesn't thouroughly understand the problem.
There is a finite amount of oil in the world, and finite demand. Oil from alaska is unlikely to reduce the cost of oil, so demand should stay constant. Now tell me why this reduces the amount of oil in the world.
It reduces the quantity of the world oil reserves because if you increase oil supply, you have shifted the supply curve without shifting the demand curve. This implies a negative price pressure, thus a new equilibrium point; namely one in which more oil is bought each year because it is cheaper. Naturally, this will have the stated effect of reducing the overall world oil supply. I would suggest reading the first chapter or two from any Economics 101 level book for more information on the basics of supply and demand curves and the how they function in an efficient economy.
Can we really know how the finite extent of the universe effects the finiteness of the number of orbitals without a complete theory of quantum gravity? Afterall this question fundamentally combines QM and GR.
The proof of No Hidden Variables is attributed to Von Neumann. It was later shown by Bell in the 60's to be not necessarily true. Basically von Neumann was a brilliant mathematician, but that didn't make him a brilliant physicist; his "proof" contained hidden assumptions which were restricitve and these were what Bell characterised and explored. There was nothing flawed about von Neumann's proof, rather with his assumptions. Thus his math was great but it doesn't necessarily apply to the real world. Unfortunately, he was so well respected that to this day most physicist are unaware that there are legitimate problems with his proof and use it to summarily dismiss work by Bohm and others which demonstrate possible Hidden Variable models.
This is the first supporting link I found from a quick google search.
We all know who is the master in the human-cat relationship... and it isn't us. Thus is it not more likely that we have evolved to become better servants for our masters?
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, damn I almost pissed myself that was so funny.
Quickly? Quietly? Poached Quails? Plain Quiches? Powerful Qualudes? Ah, never mind.
While I do not dispute your calculation, it has no relevence whatsoever to the original post.
Funny thing is, you rarely here the big investment banks taking any blame here. However, had they been more worried about their shareholders value than their end-of-year bonuses, then they would never have extended the telecoms the credit necessary to over bid the licenses. This was half the problem, cheap credit. Not surprisingly, this is coming back to haunt the investment banks, now that the market has realized that many of these loans will be non-performers.
This may well end up being one of the textbook examples of how over-investment in the business cycle causes a crushing down-cycle. Over investment is almost always due to cheap credit; thank you very much 'Sir' Alan Greenspan.
The Next Generation Space Telescope is planned to be placed in L2 orbit.
LOL, sometimes a score of five just isn't enough.
No, that would definitely be 59.4%.
I know this might shock some Slashdotters, but console gaming has always had a bigger marketshare than PC gaming (current estimates put the PC market at about 1/10th the console market).
Read the fine print. the comparison is PC to console software sales markets, not pc to total combined market.
someone mod this up, the answer is spot on.
While we are on the subject of gravity, the effective gravity you would feel while in flight at mach 7.6 at 250000 ft is about 90% g. This happens because of two effects, the reduced gravity from the height (about 25% of the effect int his case) and the centripital forces due to your rotating reference frame (the other 75%).
You cannot be serious! Clearly R_a refers to the ionization channel through which the spark has crossed several meters of air. All the rest of air has a resistance/meter considerably greater than that of the ionization channel and considerably greater than your body and can be effectively ignored. So as I said before, we are dealing with a voltage divider. If you like, we could be a little more specific. Instead we will treat the spark gap like a diode with a very high turn on voltage, I=exp(b*E)=V_p/R_p. Since V_a+V_p=V_t. We know that exp(b*V_a/x)=(V_t-V_a)*R_p. Solve for V_a then I and V_p. This is still very much a voltage divider but now with a nonlinear resister. If you wanted to you could add in your parallel component but you will quickly find that almost no current goes through it due to the obvious path preference through the human body.
I would be polite to point out that you are building a voltage divider. with zero volts at ground. 10,000 volts at the terminal. There are two resisters, the person (R_p) and the air (R_a). So the current I=10,000/(R_p+R_a). If we model R_a as linear with distance, then for some proportionality constant (c), R_a=c*x.
So then, I=10,000/(R_p+c*x).
I->10,000/(c*x) for large x,
and I-> 10,000/R_p for small x.
This is neither an exponential drop off nor a constant current.
Astute readers have by now noticed a slight problem with this scenario. Despite my well-equipped basement, I don't happen to possess a means for suspending an Earth-mass object a few feet above another Earth-mass object (i.e. the Earth itself). There's not going to be a heck of a lot I can do about the fact that my black hole is going to shoot down towards the earth under a combined force of 2G and a momentum that would require numbers with "E" in them to describe. (I had better not be standing beneath it, if I want to avoid rather nasty tidal effects as the black hole travels through my body - that killed a guy on Mars once.)
As has been pointed out previously, the local attraction is going to be far cry different than what the mini BH experiences with respect to the Earth. The attraction between the two will be very nearly m_BH*g, not 2*m_BH*g. Using 1.472 x 10^11 kg from a prior alienmole calculation, we have 1.44E12 N of force, or 1.47E8 tonnes. Which is about ten times the weight of a single world trade center tower. Charge the BH up with 1.44E12 coulombs of charge, i.e. 4E8 amp-hours or 9 kiloamp-years. Spin that puppy up. And IIRC there are static charge configurations for which charged spinning object will have a stable region of levitation. So all that is required is a giant dielectric to embed a coulomb of the given charge configuration, s.t. the immense negative electric field does not cause a breakdown and that is capable of supporting the weight of the BH w/o being crushed. Then a supporting structure would need to be built to cradle the dielectric and root it to bedrock. So it is not possible within your well-equipped basement, but within the realm of possibility for a massive civil construction project.
Don't worry about being new, apparently the people who modded you up are new as well, and are not yet familiar with the understood practice of leaving serious comments at +1.
No, because most companies reserve the "right" to change the terms of the EULA, without notification, at ANY TIME.
The whole concept of the EULA is so silly... I really hope it gets tossed out of court ASAP. Where else can the manufacturer of a product hold you under a contract you did not sign, and change the terms of that contract at any time without notifying you or getting your agreement on the changes?
Try the tax code, enourmous government beaurocray, budget deficit, pork spending, etc. These were all manufactured with your tacit consent at best. There was no contract you signed. Terms are changed anytime, without your approval, etc. It isn't like M$ doesn't have ample precident here from Congress.
cheers.
The problem with the opposite sex is they aren't yet aware of this study which shows semen intake makes girls happier. Finally the proof we've all been waiting for.
Wait a minute, I'm an idiot. Obviously color has nothing to do with animals and humans detecting black vs. white things. AND PANDAS ARE BLACK AND WHITE!! Therefore, of course color is not needed in these sex education films...
That depends on whether it is being displyed on a B&W TV or a color TV. On a color TV, white is a linear combination of RGB. Even if it appears white to us, it may still appear some other color to the Pandas. For a B&W TV, I believe the spectrum for white is more like natural light, in which case it may apear the same.
Fair enough, that particular approach will not satisfy the second question for all cases. I can think of no constraint for why a solution satisfying the second question could not be found for 13 balls; afterall, there are only 26 possible cases for the 13 ball problem, while 3 weightings has 27 possible outcomes. Certainly, given a single reference coin, the 14 coin method w/reference can be used to find a complete solution for the 13 ball problem.
I would like to point out that one cannot see you from space either, so maybe that is also something to think about.
I wrote a lengthy analysis for a colleague not long ago, but I'm too lazy to format it for '/.' so you can find it here.
For the record I find that this problem is too difficult for an interviewing scenario unless the interviewee is familar with the problem or very very smart they are not going to find the correct solution in a short amount of time. Besides describing all the cases for the complete solution takes a few minutes. As you will see, the answer (3 weighings) can be found from an information approach without knowing the complete solution.
2) this is a classic brain teaser. What you do is flip the first switch and leave it one for a minute or so. Then flip it back off and flip the second switch. Walk into the room. If the light is on, then the second switch is the one. Otherwise check and see if the bulb is hot...
3) build arches up from the tops of the square walls, if done correctly they will intersect the dome appropriately.
your questions,
1) Make a tetrahedron (thats a new one to me, I like it.)
2,3) Cut the cake into quarters in the usual manner. Now, line up the four peices into a row cut down the row into eighths?
My turn:
Given cake and a knife only, what is the best way to cut a cake between three people so that no person can complain about receiving an unfairly small portion? And what is the minimun number of cuts necessary?
3. Umm, why not use 13 balls and make it more challenging (answer 3 weighings).. better yet give them a known fair ball and they can do 14. On the other hand, if it is known only that one ball may or may not be lighter or heavier, then 12 balls is the best you can do with three weighings... unless you have a fair ball in which case it is 13. I always thought this was a funny question because it shows the interviewer doesn't thouroughly understand the problem.
There is a finite amount of oil in the world, and finite demand. Oil from alaska is unlikely to reduce the cost of oil, so demand should stay constant. Now tell me why this reduces the amount of oil in the world.
It reduces the quantity of the world oil reserves because if you increase oil supply, you have shifted the supply curve without shifting the demand curve. This implies a negative price pressure, thus a new equilibrium point; namely one in which more oil is bought each year because it is cheaper. Naturally, this will have the stated effect of reducing the overall world oil supply. I would suggest reading the first chapter or two from any Economics 101 level book for more information on the basics of supply and demand curves and the how they function in an efficient economy.
Can we really know how the finite extent of the universe effects the finiteness of the number of orbitals without a complete theory of quantum gravity? Afterall this question fundamentally combines QM and GR.
The proof of No Hidden Variables is attributed to Von Neumann. It was later shown by Bell in the 60's to be not necessarily true. Basically von Neumann was a brilliant mathematician, but that didn't make him a brilliant physicist; his "proof" contained hidden assumptions which were restricitve and these were what Bell characterised and explored. There was nothing flawed about von Neumann's proof, rather with his assumptions. Thus his math was great but it doesn't necessarily apply to the real world. Unfortunately, he was so well respected that to this day most physicist are unaware that there are legitimate problems with his proof and use it to summarily dismiss work by Bohm and others which demonstrate possible Hidden Variable models.
This is the first supporting link I found from a quick google search.
We all know who is the master in the human-cat relationship... and it isn't us. Thus is it not more likely that we have evolved to become better servants for our masters?