I agree, redefine...but it seems easier to redefine it by fixing Avogadro's number and then saying that the mass of one mole of C12 divided by 12 equals one gram.
Maybe to a physicist/mathematician it seems inelegant to base the definition of mass on an arbitrary number (Avogadro's) rather than on a physical constant. But are we absolutely, positively sure that physical constants are constant throughout the space-time continuum and that we've got them exactly right?
I'm not too solid on quinone chemistry. Anthraquinone is planar, all the ring molecules are sp2 but appears to have 16 pi electrons (not a Huckel number). Although the oxygen hybridization is a little flexible, I'm guessing the molecule's not aromatic but damned close. <br> <br> So does oxidized copper accept a pair of electrons from the anthraquinone or does the metal donate?
First of all you can't get the "groove" unless you listen to an actual recording and secondly I've never found a transcription in my life that was entirely correct. Guitar tab is a tool and a good starting point for learning a song.
Any sane business would try to set up some kind of affiliate deal with tab sites to try to sell mp3's of the songs being searched for.
I liked that line in the article--it shows the writer is familiar with Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene). The only "human" emotion the statement gives to DNA is the "will to reproduce" and while the DNA isn't consciously trying different strategies, the mechanisms that introduce the mutations are built from the DNA's template. In Dawkins view, us humans (and dogs, and transmissible doggy sarcoma) are just the bags of machinery that the genes build to help them replicate themselves.
So maybe assigning the "will to reproduce" to humans is DNA-morphizing anthropos.
I'm a CSS junkie and most of my sites are hacked to hell to work in IE. If they fix the bugs that the hacks depend on but not the bugs that necessitate the hacks I'm looking at a lot of unpaid work. Yeah, it's my own damn fault for coding that way.
That said, greater CSS support would definitely be a good thing but I think the problem is that it's not a trivial amount of work. The IE rendering engine does weird things--check the 'has layout' property or 'doctype switching' in MSDN. The IE cascade seems tortuously complex and changing even small things could possibly have unexpected results.
I'm psyched that they're supporting PNG alpha transparency and hope they can fix their float model but suspect all CSS advancements will be trivial. Number #1 on my wish list is proper support for height/min-height and width/min-width--even that would probably break a lot of web sites.
To me it seems most logical to base a measurement of mass on amount. Using the earth's gravity for the calculation is short sited and location dependent.
To define the gram as 1/12 of Avogadro's number of Carbon twelve atoms and then fix the value of Avogadro's number is my favorite solution. We can use the closest approximation we have now and then just extend the zeros to convert what was a measured value to a defined value. Something like 50184516583333333333333 atoms of C12 == 1gram.
It might seem a little crazy at first, but it's not without precedent. Something very similar was done when the speed of light was fixed for the newest meter definition. I'm sure practically it's going to be a pain but give me a pair of tweezers, some carbon and a million similarly equipped monkeys and I'll start counting.
Slashdot Mirror
delta G = delta H - T delta S
Italic serif script with nice chunky triangles for the deltas.
What the crap is an article about a newly found force that doesn't explain at least a theory as to the source of the force? Is it magnetic?
I agree, redefine...but it seems easier to redefine it by fixing Avogadro's number and then saying that the mass of one mole of C12 divided by 12 equals one gram.
Maybe to a physicist/mathematician it seems inelegant to base the definition of mass on an arbitrary number (Avogadro's) rather than on a physical constant. But are we absolutely, positively sure that physical constants are constant throughout the space-time continuum and that we've got them exactly right?
How about: the other reference copies aren't quite so tightly guarded and occasionally pick up a fingerprint?
I'm not too solid on quinone chemistry. Anthraquinone is planar, all the ring molecules are sp2 but appears to have 16 pi electrons (not a Huckel number). Although the oxygen hybridization is a little flexible, I'm guessing the molecule's not aromatic but damned close.
<br>
<br>
So does oxidized copper accept a pair of electrons from the anthraquinone or does the metal donate?
Exactly. You can't learn a song from tab alone.
First of all you can't get the "groove" unless you listen to an actual recording and secondly I've never found a transcription in my life that was entirely correct. Guitar tab is a tool and a good starting point for learning a song.
Any sane business would try to set up some kind of affiliate deal with tab sites to try to sell mp3's of the songs being searched for.
I liked that line in the article--it shows the writer is familiar with Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene). The only "human" emotion the statement gives to DNA is the "will to reproduce" and while the DNA isn't consciously trying different strategies, the mechanisms that introduce the mutations are built from the DNA's template. In Dawkins view, us humans (and dogs, and transmissible doggy sarcoma) are just the bags of machinery that the genes build to help them replicate themselves.
So maybe assigning the "will to reproduce" to humans is DNA-morphizing anthropos.
I'm a CSS junkie and most of my sites are hacked to hell to work in IE. If they fix the bugs that the hacks depend on but not the bugs that necessitate the hacks I'm looking at a lot of unpaid work. Yeah, it's my own damn fault for coding that way.
That said, greater CSS support would definitely be a good thing but I think the problem is that it's not a trivial amount of work. The IE rendering engine does weird things--check the 'has layout' property or 'doctype switching' in MSDN. The IE cascade seems tortuously complex and changing even small things could possibly have unexpected results.
I'm psyched that they're supporting PNG alpha transparency and hope they can fix their float model but suspect all CSS advancements will be trivial. Number #1 on my wish list is proper support for height/min-height and width/min-width--even that would probably break a lot of web sites.
To me it seems most logical to base a measurement of mass on amount. Using the earth's gravity for the calculation is short sited and location dependent.
To define the gram as 1/12 of Avogadro's number of Carbon twelve atoms and then fix the value of Avogadro's number is my favorite solution. We can use the closest approximation we have now and then just extend the zeros to convert what was a measured value to a defined value. Something like 50184516583333333333333 atoms of C12 == 1gram.
It might seem a little crazy at first, but it's not without precedent. Something very similar was done when the speed of light was fixed for the newest meter definition. I'm sure practically it's going to be a pain but give me a pair of tweezers, some carbon and a million similarly equipped monkeys and I'll start counting.