A magnetic field might help, though it might be impractical.
Earth's magnetic field strength is about 30 to 60 microTeslas at the surface. While relatively weak, it is distributed over a wide area. It is very effective in deflecting high-energy particles -- especially those coming from the Sun -- but not so effective in deflecting the highest-energy ones. Those particles that are deflected are driven on a helical path that tends to guide them toward the Earth's magnetic poles, where densities of impinging particles are generally higher than at other locations.
A rare-earth permanent magnet has a magnetic field strength of as much as 1.2 Teslas, about 20,000 times more dense. Though Earth's field is weaker, it is distributed over a very large volume, making it effective in protecting the comparably large regions of the Earth's surface. A rare earth magnet's field is smaller -- giving it less volume over which to induce deflection -- but far more intense, making it more effective in deflecting particles away from the smaller volume it encompasses.
I don't have sufficient data or prowess in this specific branch of physics to be able to scale these facts to the point where I could conclusively tell you that the field of a permanent magnet would be more, less, or equally effective as the Earth's magnetic field in reducing cosmic ray exposure to anything contained within it. (Perhaps someone else in the Slashdot community has the ability to do so.) But I am confident that there would be some improvement -- as long as you stored the film off-center from the axis of the magnetic field yet still within the toroidal surface defined by its greatest intensity.
The use of a permanent magnet makes the concept of magnetic field deflection more economically practical: at least you don't have to pay for 30 years of electricity. But trying to find a rare-earth magnet large enough (or a sufficient number of smaller magnets) to encompass the volume of film you wish to protect may end up scuttling the whole idea. Time limitations make it necessary for me to once again rely on others here to come up with the specific recommendations of commercially-available magnets that might yield you a practical solution -- if they exist at all.
so instead the American corporation Walmart opens stores across Canada (you do know we have Walmarts here, right? The idea of Canadians driving to the US to go to Walmart seems pretty bizarre),
Not when the WalMart in the US is 40 miles closer to the town in question than is the one in Canada. And yes, I know there are WalMarts in Canada, but you do know that that's not the issue, right? The tax you pay when you go home to Canada is.
which we fully allow
...except in Vancouver, for example. But that's not the point, either.
and patronize,
Your choice, remember. I normally choose not to, BTW.
and yield millions across Canada which they drive back home. Hardly seems equitable, does it?
Do you mean when you compare it against what Irving stations in America and your other exports (salmon, for example) bring back to Canada? And how much corporate tax and other fees does WalMart pay in Canada?
As a sidenote: Back in the 90s there was a HUGE "problem" with cross border shopping, and that was when the Canadian dollar was in the mid-60s. Canadians went to the US for more selection, and because in the end it still was less expensive.
"The economies of Canada and West Germany... experienced brief booms when tax rates were reduced in 1988 and 1989 respectively, but Canada slipped into recession in early 1990 after reversing course with surtaxes and a new sales tax." Source: "Marginal Tax Rates" by Alan Reynolds US border towns boomed during that period because US sales taxes were significantly lower. Soon after, Canada made up for this "problem" in large part by increasing import taxes.
Since then, however, global distribution means there is virtually no selection advantage, and the rate of inflation in the US has far outpaced Canada -
Whether distribution is global or not makes less difference to sales volume than does the amount of overhead costs, including tax burden.
US inflation rate 2002: 1.6%
Canadian inflation rate 2002: 2.2% (est.)
Source: CIA Factbook - I'm open to a better reference, if you have one.
Now even with an appreciated relative dollar, American consumer goods are jus ridiculously expensive.
...when you add the Canadian taxes, surcharges, and fees, yes.
Trade between us is not the issue, my friend; it's the taxes on that trade that is. (At least it seems that way to me, after visiting New Brunswick for the past 40 years.)
The canadian looney is artificially kept "low" by toying with the interest rates index to favor US exports, wich is the buyer of 90% of our exports.
All you have to do is live in America near a Canadian border town to know how true this is. You can stand at the border crossing in Maine and see that the trucks are coming from Canada full and leaving empty.
And there are other factors, too. Our fellow North Americans must pay sizable taxes and tariffs on things they buy in the U.S. and take back home. As a result, even WalMarts in America near the Canadian border draw few Canadian customers. Some may think that's a good thing, but they should stand at the borderline and look at the shops (or lack of them) on both sides and then ask themselves if it's really equitable.
We've talked alot about the iPod, but not much about Mehdi's comment "...when we ship our service..." which I assume refers to their equivalent of the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) and other follow-ons. If Mehdi's comment has any basis in fact, then we should be discussing what will happen when MS introduces it's service, not when they supposed introduce some nebulous iPod clone.
With that in mind, we can look at the entire comment in another light. To me, the implication is that the service they introduce will, by design, not be compatible with the iPod. Why else would Mehdi be spending time "...with a bunch of hardware manufacturers who will launch hardware products when we ship our service..."?
What is more, we should wonder why MS would introduce only a MS (music service) when Jobs repeatedly says that iTMS alone doesn't make money, a premise which FrankenNapster seems to be proving out. Is it the tie-ins (like Apple's recent tie-in with Westin Hotels)? Is the draw that music has on people that might be so strong as to get them to switch platforms? Or is it that MS can't afford to cede Market Share (MS) in any major market to anyone? When the price per song goes up -- and it will, no matter who is involved -- the one who holds the largest MS (music service) will make the most money. MS will be competing with AOL as much as they will with Apple when they introduce MSMS.
And while I'm at it, one more point. MS's (Microsoft's) entry into MSs (music services) is typical of the strategy they have employed for decades:
1) Let someone else develop a product
2) Let someone else develop the market for it
3) Make a workable knock-off of the product
4) Sell it cheaper* with heavy marketing and the good ol' compatibility argument while using customers as beta testers
5) Profit on market share (MS) and volume
Zero product- and market-development costs mean a bigger bottom line. Coca Cola does it (Mr. Pibb, the whole Fanta line), and so does MS (QDOS, the windows paradigm, MultiPlan/Excel, Word, etc., etc., etc.). Copyright and patent laws were intended to promote innovation by giving small concerns a fighting chance against knock-off artists, but that apparently wasn't enough, so anti-trust laws were established. But when neither are wisely enforced, the knock-off artists flourish, whether they exist in Asia or here.
* The cheap price comes from capital flowing from other parts of the company. Let's see MS try to run their music service as an arms-length subsidiary or even a separately-accounted division.
Type Command-Shift-U or select Utilities from the Go menu. This opens the Utilities folder.
Locate and select the Terminal application. You can do this quickly by typing the first few letters of the app name.
Double-click on the Terminal app or type Command-O or select Open from the File menu to start the app.
Enjoy! (bash default in 10.3, tcsh default in 10.2 and optional in 10.3, csh, sh, and zsh optional. The Console app -- similar access -- lets you monitor log files.)
I guess the philosophy for doing it this way is to keep Gramma from stumbing into the shell by accident. We wouldn't want her to fall and accidentally type rm!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! You can see the future! You're amazing!
So tell me... while you're doing all this foretelling... who's going to win the Bold Ruler H run at Belmont Park on May 10? I'm just askin'.
If Platonism is supposed to be so "religious," why is it that logical positivism implies that you have to be a prophet?
Do you speak from experience or hearsay?
On balance, it's not a smart move to inhale this substance. That's if this Peer Review report is to be believed.
A magnetic field might help, though it might be impractical.
Earth's magnetic field strength is about 30 to 60 microTeslas at the surface. While relatively weak, it is distributed over a wide area. It is very effective in deflecting high-energy particles -- especially those coming from the Sun -- but not so effective in deflecting the highest-energy ones. Those particles that are deflected are driven on a helical path that tends to guide them toward the Earth's magnetic poles, where densities of impinging particles are generally higher than at other locations.
A rare-earth permanent magnet has a magnetic field strength of as much as 1.2 Teslas, about 20,000 times more dense. Though Earth's field is weaker, it is distributed over a very large volume, making it effective in protecting the comparably large regions of the Earth's surface. A rare earth magnet's field is smaller -- giving it less volume over which to induce deflection -- but far more intense, making it more effective in deflecting particles away from the smaller volume it encompasses.
I don't have sufficient data or prowess in this specific branch of physics to be able to scale these facts to the point where I could conclusively tell you that the field of a permanent magnet would be more, less, or equally effective as the Earth's magnetic field in reducing cosmic ray exposure to anything contained within it. (Perhaps someone else in the Slashdot community has the ability to do so.) But I am confident that there would be some improvement -- as long as you stored the film off-center from the axis of the magnetic field yet still within the toroidal surface defined by its greatest intensity.
The use of a permanent magnet makes the concept of magnetic field deflection more economically practical: at least you don't have to pay for 30 years of electricity. But trying to find a rare-earth magnet large enough (or a sufficient number of smaller magnets) to encompass the volume of film you wish to protect may end up scuttling the whole idea. Time limitations make it necessary for me to once again rely on others here to come up with the specific recommendations of commercially-available magnets that might yield you a practical solution -- if they exist at all.
Weeelll, then again, maybe they will!
so instead the American corporation Walmart opens stores across Canada (you do know we have Walmarts here, right? The idea of Canadians driving to the US to go to Walmart seems pretty bizarre),
Not when the WalMart in the US is 40 miles closer to the town in question than is the one in Canada. And yes, I know there are WalMarts in Canada, but you do know that that's not the issue, right? The tax you pay when you go home to Canada is.
which we fully allow
...except in Vancouver, for example. But that's not the point, either.
and patronize,
Your choice, remember. I normally choose not to, BTW.
and yield millions across Canada which they drive back home. Hardly seems equitable, does it?
Do you mean when you compare it against what Irving stations in America and your other exports (salmon, for example) bring back to Canada? And how much corporate tax and other fees does WalMart pay in Canada?
As a sidenote: Back in the 90s there was a HUGE "problem" with cross border shopping, and that was when the Canadian dollar was in the mid-60s. Canadians went to the US for more selection, and because in the end it still was less expensive.
"The economies of Canada and West Germany ... experienced brief booms when tax rates were reduced in 1988 and 1989 respectively, but Canada slipped into recession in early 1990 after reversing course with surtaxes and a new sales tax." Source: "Marginal Tax Rates" by Alan Reynolds US border towns boomed during that period because US sales taxes were significantly lower. Soon after, Canada made up for this "problem" in large part by increasing import taxes.
Since then, however, global distribution means there is virtually no selection advantage, and the rate of inflation in the US has far outpaced Canada -
Whether distribution is global or not makes less difference to sales volume than does the amount of overhead costs, including tax burden.
US inflation rate 2002: 1.6%
Canadian inflation rate 2002: 2.2% (est.)
Source: CIA Factbook - I'm open to a better reference, if you have one.
Now even with an appreciated relative dollar, American consumer goods are jus ridiculously expensive.
...when you add the Canadian taxes, surcharges, and fees, yes.
Trade between us is not the issue, my friend; it's the taxes on that trade that is. (At least it seems that way to me, after visiting New Brunswick for the past 40 years.)
The canadian looney is artificially kept "low" by toying with the interest rates index to favor US exports, wich is the buyer of 90% of our exports.
All you have to do is live in America near a Canadian border town to know how true this is. You can stand at the border crossing in Maine and see that the trucks are coming from Canada full and leaving empty.
And there are other factors, too. Our fellow North Americans must pay sizable taxes and tariffs on things they buy in the U.S. and take back home. As a result, even WalMarts in America near the Canadian border draw few Canadian customers. Some may think that's a good thing, but they should stand at the borderline and look at the shops (or lack of them) on both sides and then ask themselves if it's really equitable.
We've talked alot about the iPod, but not much about Mehdi's comment "...when we ship our service..." which I assume refers to their equivalent of the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) and other follow-ons. If Mehdi's comment has any basis in fact, then we should be discussing what will happen when MS introduces it's service, not when they supposed introduce some nebulous iPod clone.
With that in mind, we can look at the entire comment in another light. To me, the implication is that the service they introduce will, by design, not be compatible with the iPod. Why else would Mehdi be spending time "...with a bunch of hardware manufacturers who will launch hardware products when we ship our service..."?
What is more, we should wonder why MS would introduce only a MS (music service) when Jobs repeatedly says that iTMS alone doesn't make money, a premise which FrankenNapster seems to be proving out. Is it the tie-ins (like Apple's recent tie-in with Westin Hotels)? Is the draw that music has on people that might be so strong as to get them to switch platforms? Or is it that MS can't afford to cede Market Share (MS) in any major market to anyone? When the price per song goes up -- and it will, no matter who is involved -- the one who holds the largest MS (music service) will make the most money. MS will be competing with AOL as much as they will with Apple when they introduce MSMS.
And while I'm at it, one more point. MS's (Microsoft's) entry into MSs (music services) is typical of the strategy they have employed for decades:
Zero product- and market-development costs mean a bigger bottom line. Coca Cola does it (Mr. Pibb, the whole Fanta line), and so does MS (QDOS, the windows paradigm, MultiPlan/Excel, Word, etc., etc., etc.). Copyright and patent laws were intended to promote innovation by giving small concerns a fighting chance against knock-off artists, but that apparently wasn't enough, so anti-trust laws were established. But when neither are wisely enforced, the knock-off artists flourish, whether they exist in Asia or here.
* The cheap price comes from capital flowing from other parts of the company. Let's see MS try to run their music service as an arms-length subsidiary or even a separately-accounted division.
I've never been able to find the shell prompt
From the Finder...
Type Command-Shift-U or select Utilities from the Go menu. This opens the Utilities folder.
Locate and select the Terminal application. You can do this quickly by typing the first few letters of the app name.
Double-click on the Terminal app or type Command-O or select Open from the File menu to start the app.
Enjoy! (bash default in 10.3, tcsh default in 10.2 and optional in 10.3, csh, sh, and zsh optional. The Console app -- similar access -- lets you monitor log files.)
I guess the philosophy for doing it this way is to keep Gramma from stumbing into the shell by accident. We wouldn't want her to fall and accidentally type rm!