You can do this even without having real monopoles by gauging the equations so that every mass which has electromagnetic charge has a certain amount of electric and magnetic charge (gauge invariance of Maxwell's Equations). For this, the ratio of electric charge to magnetic charge has to be equal for all these masses. This will make the equations symmetrical.
So I'm wondering how the equations will change if there's a real magnetic charge. Does this case distinguish itself from the gauge case in any way?
Clearly we're not. It's bullshit speculation like this (and that is all this is) that leads to kneejerk legislation like ban incandescent bulbs despite the MULTIPLE hazards and health issues with the only viable replacement.
Multiple hazards? I don't know any. Sure, clumsy people may drop a bulb or two in a time period of several years if they're not paying attention. And release a "horrible" 4mg of mercury (or less). But that's what warning signs are for. Please don't make me "discuss" people who are to dumb or lazy to get rid of used bulbs the proper way.
For every scientist that says "WE'RE ALL DOOMED!" another one says "Erm... No we're not." Just like "video games causes violent behaviour" and "video games don't cause violent behaviour".
"In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it."
Purely for my own edification I pulled together weather records for where I live. I realise there's nothing scientific to it, but I was curious, since you'd assume if things are as bad as some claim, there's be some sign. Some indication that there was an increase in temperatures, even if only a degree or two.
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. (...) Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 C (1.33 ± 0.32 F) during the 100 years ending in 2005." (accentuation by me)
You care to list some? And: I think you can't do measurements without having some idea of interaction (quantifiable object measurement device) which depends on causality.
It presupposes the accuracy of our senses, the non-arbitrariness of the universe, and even the notion that there is an external universe to study at all.
(Disclaimer: I don't know what exactly you mean by "external" or if you have covered this by "non-arbitrariness")
This reality (universe) also has to be an objective (aka mind-independent) reality.
No, physics is an outlet of philosophy. That happened when we found the means to actually test hypotheses about non-living objects and began to realize what we were talking about.
it is interesting to note that the universe is mainly built out of second order laws. This means that in many cases there are a small number of poles or zeros that can control macroscopic behaviour and often analytic solutions exist. This would be how a desiginer would do it. given a choice one chooses a qaudradic over a 6th order polynomial since an anytic solution to the zeros exits.
ITYM "it is interesting to note that mathematical models of the universe are mainly second order laws." And these easily break down if you look at more complex systems like nonlinear optic materials. Then you have to use solutions which are not analytical or use approximations. E.g. to my knowledge there are no exact analytical solutions for atoms and molecules except the nonrelativistic mathematical model of hydrogen. IIRC even the electric field itself strays from a second order law if the field strength is high enough (inside atoms).
If I don't have a clue, I will get me some advice. If I am too proud/stupid to do this, I have no business in blaming others for my mistakes. It's still a conscious decision to buy something even if I don't have a clue what I am buying.
But, clearly, Dell's representative is at fault for not evaluating her situation more closely and thus giving bad advice.
A note on that article from WKOW 27: I find it very arrogant to call a x86(ia64?) based computer with Windows (i guess it should be a modern version of it) on it a "classic bread-and-butter computer". WTH does that mean, anyway? I don't recall any classic operating systems and/or hardware platforms (well, maybe *NIX comes close to the OS part). To me, "classic" means: it served us well for over 30+ years in a stabilized form. E.g. the Otto-cycle engine is a classic concept in engineering.
I think their main folly is that they don't distinguish between the power necessary to service requests vs. the total power used(which includes all the power it takes to index sites and store the results so they can be fetched quickly etc.)
A search on an empty or outdated database wouldn't be much of use, wouldn't it? Since the database is generated because of the searches I don't think you have to distinguish. You can have a database without the searches but not the other way around.
In fact, the power per search using their methodology may actually drop the more searches that are performed because each search's share of the power required for indexing drops.
Yes. And I don't think that's flawed methodology at all. Indeed, it's something I would expect: saving power by building a single index used by a large distributed network of servers which serve the frontend to the database to clients.
That's funny because mine generates 0g per hour. It's called nuclear power.
I doubt this. You have to mine uranium ore, refine it to sth breedable, build a reactor and transport lots of weight around. This will produce lots of CO2 initially and continuously unless your machinery doesn't run on fossil fuels. Which is very unlikely.
Which are more valuable to our overall environment? A few less cubic feet of CO2, or a few more salmon, a couple of ducks, some crayfish and a sturgeon?
I would say the former. Increased levels of greenhouse gases will have a far more global consequences and cause global damage than building a few damms here and there. The power has to be generated somewhere. IMHO it's a sensible and logical choice to trade local landscape change for global climate change.
For example, you store your photographs across 3 hard disks, because your storage has grown organically with your usage. So you now have three places to go to access your pictures. If you set all three locations as import points for a Library, you get a consolidated view of all the locations as one. Very cool, and a nice new way to look at content.
Slashdot Mirror
(gauge invariance of Maxwell's Equations)
This should be "gauge invariance of electrodynamics". The equations will change for a different gauge, as I wrote later on.
So I'm wondering how the equations will change if there's a real magnetic charge. Does this case distinguish itself from the gauge case in any way?
It's explained in last weeks story.
...is for the whole week in between the experiment simultaneously existed as both a success and a failure.
Until some slashdotter finally observed TFA.
I didn't mean Gmail. I meant the webbrowser, of course. And Zawinski's Law suddenly applies perfectly...
If you download messages with POP3 you can access them only from your PC.
No.
This solution just creates one more, very imperfect, email client.
Zawinski's Law
... besides, it wouldn't even be that important if it slowed down:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/
Interesting. Since I even learned that myth(?) in school, i will remain sceptical.
Clearly we're not. It's bullshit speculation like this (and that is all this is) that leads to kneejerk legislation like ban incandescent bulbs despite the MULTIPLE hazards and health issues with the only viable replacement.
Multiple hazards? I don't know any. Sure, clumsy people may drop a bulb or two in a time period of several years if they're not paying attention. And release a "horrible" 4mg of mercury (or less). But that's what warning signs are for. Please don't make me "discuss" people who are to dumb or lazy to get rid of used bulbs the proper way.
For every scientist that says "WE'RE ALL DOOMED!" another one says "Erm... No we're not." Just like "video games causes violent behaviour" and "video games don't cause violent behaviour".
"In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it."
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
It's also very hard to take to any talk of global warming that seriously when a large chunk of the northern hemisphere is freezing its ass off.
Maybe the Gulf Stream is slowing down already.
Purely for my own edification I pulled together weather records for where I live. I realise there's nothing scientific to it, but I was curious, since you'd assume if things are as bad as some claim, there's be some sign. Some indication that there was an increase in temperatures, even if only a degree or two.
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. (...) Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 C (1.33 ± 0.32 F) during the 100 years ending in 2005." (accentuation by me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Some of the best "hard" science fiction writers of today are geeks
Indeed. My favourites: Alastair Reynolds and, of course, Stephen Baxter.
Significantly more formats? Are you kidding? It doesn't even play Ogg Vorbis!
"find the project's website, click download, wait, click install.exe, click next, click next, wait, click next, click next, reboot"
There, fixed that for you ;)
sudo: end: command not found
$ sudo simulation-client --terminate --pid=1443675
$
You care to list some? And: I think you can't do measurements without having some idea of interaction (quantifiable object measurement device) which depends on causality.
It presupposes the accuracy of our senses, the non-arbitrariness of the universe, and even the notion that there is an external universe to study at all.
(Disclaimer: I don't know what exactly you mean by "external" or if you have covered this by "non-arbitrariness")
This reality (universe) also has to be an objective (aka mind-independent) reality.
No, physics is an outlet of philosophy. That happened when we found the means to actually test hypotheses about non-living objects and began to realize what we were talking about.
it is interesting to note that the universe is mainly built out of second order laws. This means that in many cases there are a small number of poles or zeros that can control macroscopic behaviour and often analytic solutions exist. This would be how a desiginer would do it. given a choice one chooses a qaudradic over a 6th order polynomial since an anytic solution to the zeros exits.
ITYM "it is interesting to note that mathematical models of the universe are mainly second order laws." And these easily break down if you look at more complex systems like nonlinear optic materials. Then you have to use solutions which are not analytical or use approximations. E.g. to my knowledge there are no exact analytical solutions for atoms and molecules except the nonrelativistic mathematical model of hydrogen. IIRC even the electric field itself strays from a second order law if the field strength is high enough (inside atoms).
If I don't have a clue, I will get me some advice. If I am too proud/stupid to do this, I have no business in blaming others for my mistakes. It's still a conscious decision to buy something even if I don't have a clue what I am buying.
But, clearly, Dell's representative is at fault for not evaluating her situation more closely and thus giving bad advice.
A note on that article from WKOW 27: I find it very arrogant to call a x86(ia64?) based computer with Windows (i guess it should be a modern version of it) on it a "classic bread-and-butter computer". WTH does that mean, anyway? I don't recall any classic operating systems and/or hardware platforms (well, maybe *NIX comes close to the OS part). To me, "classic" means: it served us well for over 30+ years in a stabilized form. E.g. the Otto-cycle engine is a classic concept in engineering.
Armies battling computer viruses at least don't engage in other kinds of warfare. Let's keep it that way.
Let me ask you a question: if someone was born on 01.01.0 how old would he/she get at the 01.01.2000?
Right, because Microsoft would benefit from people using Google less.
There, fixed that for you ;)
I think their main folly is that they don't distinguish between the power necessary to service requests vs. the total power used(which includes all the power it takes to index sites and store the results so they can be fetched quickly etc.)
A search on an empty or outdated database wouldn't be much of use, wouldn't it? Since the database is generated because of the searches I don't think you have to distinguish. You can have a database without the searches but not the other way around.
In fact, the power per search using their methodology may actually drop the more searches that are performed because each search's share of the power required for indexing drops.
Yes. And I don't think that's flawed methodology at all. Indeed, it's something I would expect: saving power by building a single index used by a large distributed network of servers which serve the frontend to the database to clients.
That's funny because mine generates 0g per hour. It's called nuclear power.
I doubt this. You have to mine uranium ore, refine it to sth breedable, build a reactor and transport lots of weight around. This will produce lots of CO2 initially and continuously unless your machinery doesn't run on fossil fuels. Which is very unlikely.
Which are more valuable to our overall environment? A few less cubic feet of CO2, or a few more salmon, a couple of ducks, some crayfish and a sturgeon?
I would say the former. Increased levels of greenhouse gases will have a far more global consequences and cause global damage than building a few damms here and there. The power has to be generated somewhere. IMHO it's a sensible and logical choice to trade local landscape change for global climate change.
For example, you store your photographs across 3 hard disks, because your storage has grown organically with your usage. So you now have three places to go to access your pictures. If you set all three locations as import points for a Library, you get a consolidated view of all the locations as one. Very cool, and a nice new way to look at content.
Old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionfs