Centrifugal force is as real as gravity. Under relativity, acceleration due to gravity is simply an artifact of choosing a non-inertial frame of reference.
So is centrifugal force.
So in short, anyone who says that centrifugal force does not exist should also say that gravitational force does not exist. In both cases, the apparent "force" is merely due to a convenient choice of coordinates.
It is thermal imaging. Terahertz waves are at the low end of the far-infrared region of the spectrum. They are produced by thermal radiation of all objects warmer than liquid helium temperature.
Photons do not have mass. They have energy and momentum. The deBroglie relation relates momentum and wavelength. Momentum is not mass*velocity except for very low velocities. The true relation between energy, mass, and momentum is
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2,
where E is energy, m is mass, p is momentum, and c is the speed of light. (In the case where p=0, this reduces to the familiar E=mc^2)
I expect that at any time my worst enemy will be able to access anything I've ever posted to any newsgroup. Not that I have a worst enemy, as far as I know. Maybe I do now:)
As for myself, I routinely archive every post in every newsgroup I frequent, indefinitely. Even when I'm not reading it. On a number of occasions, this policy has been extraordinarily useful. Not so much to smear others or even to win arguments, but for when someone (including myself) wants an answer to an InFrequently Asked Question. It typically takes me about 30 seconds to find all previous relevant responses.
Deja's crippling of older achives was quite a blow to me -- I hadn't realised how much I had relied on external archives of groups that I don't normally follow. Troubleshooting in particular is much easier if you can locate someone else's discussion of an obscure problem. I was not surprised when Deja finally died -- they had already gutted it and mangled the interface too badly for anyone to get any benefit from it.
That loss of old posts won't happen again -- I wrote a script to automatically extract newsgroup articles from the archive, and have so far retrieved around 180 MB of history in relevant groups. Even if Google goes under, I'll still have quite a useful archive of my own, albeit limited.
On the other hand, why is everyone so pissed at marketers? As long as
I can "opt out" (and I should be allowed to do that, I agree), I'm
fine with customized advertisements. They are great!
Sure, it's great to get well-presented brochures and catalogs
detailed nifty stuff you never knew existed. The first time. The
second time, there isn't much interesting info there. By the third,
you're ignoring it, and starting to get stuff from marketers who
guessed less well what your interests are.
But that's OK, you can just opt-out. It only takes you about
fifteen minutes finding their opt-out email address, and composing and
sending email. The fact that they accidentally accidentally added
your address to their list twice (spelled slightly differently the
second time) is easily sorted out by a long-distance phone call in
only 60 minutes on the phone, spread over 3 days.
However, the secondary bunch of advertisers are too numerous, or
claim to send you stuff just as a "one off" promotion. You don't need
to opt out, they promise not to send you anything else. "No, that was
a different company who just uses the same publisher." You decide to
leave it and just use their (glossy, hard to burn) paper in your wood
heater.
Then you move house. The person moving into your new house asks
what to do about all this addressed mail that's coming in. You've
changed all your addresses elsewhere, so you ask him to just bin it.
However, you forgot to change your address in one place out of
hundreds, and never get an important letter which really
pisses you off. Meanwhile, you're getting pretty annoyed by having to deal with the junk mail
coming in for the previous owners of your new house.
So in my experience, it's better to not end up on anyone's mailing
list. Now, this isn't life-threatening or anything. In fact, I used to think it was completely harmless too. It's just highly
irritating, and overall wastes a lot of your time that
they aren't paying for. The inconvenience (not just to you,
but anyone who lives where you used to) is absolutely not
worth the benefits.
Does anyone know where I could get a UV or IR laser, in a sleek pen form factor? Ok, I am being sarcastic (these types of lasers tend to be on the large side of things)
No, IR lasers are incredibly small -- you can pick up an IR laser diode for a few cents. In fact, they're cheaper, smaller and more efficient than visible-light ones. I've built a UV laser, though it it was a fair bit larger than a keychain pointer. I'm sure that it could be easily scaled down.
My wife didn't want to leave the company "high and dry," as it were. There would be no one to work this fair, and her boss made no effort to have her go home and recourperate.
I think this illustrates how work can skew people's values. In my view, I owe my employer no intrinsic loyalty, nor do they owe me any. Loyalty is for family and friends.
Now an employer can also be a friend, and become deserving of loyalty. But how long would you tolerate a friend who instructed you to do things for them out under such conditions? Not long in my case.
I can understand your wife's reluctance to "leave them high and dry", I've felt it myself. But only because they were deserving of such feelings. It can also come from the knowledge that you're putting more workload on fellow employees who are friends, at least in part. But that's an illusion, because they have no moral obligation to do your work for nothing.
The bottom line is: if the employer cares about being left "high and dry", they shouldn't treat their employees badly. If they don't care about being left "high and dry", why should you?
The way I interpret this is as follows: make sure you devote one hard-drive entirely to mp3's, people! Put your mp3 player on the other drive!;)
Actually from part (B) it appears that having the mp3-player in the same hard-drive is OK, as the player software would qualify as
statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in order to bring about the perception, reproduction, or communication of the fixed sounds and incidental material.
However, you would only want the mp3-player software and programs necessary to "directly or indirectly" play the "fixed sounds". Any other software present would disqualify the hard drive from being a "digital musical recording", from my reading.
I am not a lawyer, of course. (Has anyone seen a lawyer post "IAAL"?)
I do own an ancient second-hand laptop. It's a Pentium 100 based machine, way behind the state of the art. I could have bought one with a better display, but to save money I settled on only 800x600 with 16-bit colour.
So yes, I have used a laptop recently. But no, I don't see why that would mean that I should design my web pages for 8-bit colour. I think the main lesson to be learned from the Webmonkey tests is that there is no web-safe palette.
When designing, you have to remember that some users will even choose to reverse black and white, overriding the document's hints.
I do agree that designers should not assume more than 640x480 displays. Many people, myself included, like to use windows smaller than the full screen. In fact, many websites look horrible in any of 730x1024 (my window size at work), 1024x1171 (my current window size at home), or 1600x1200 (my usual full-screen size at home).
I also pay per MB for my home connection, so 95% of the time, I will have images turned off when I first arrive at a site. If the text content looks sufficiently appealing by itself, or I'm specifically looking for pretty pictures, I might load images. Otherwise, I'll move on to a better designed site.
Anyone that has read the works of our favorite British geek, big Alan Turing, knows that he stated in the 30s that computational speeds double every 12-18 months. Turing took a look at the "computers" dating back into the 1800s.
I don't think so. Extrapolating Moore's law backward to 1930's, even with only a factor of 2 per 18 months, gives 1 operation per day. Somehow I think computations went a little faster than that, and certainly faster than 1 operation per 3 millenia in 1900.
If Alan Turing did indeed propose such a doubling every 12 to 18 months (and nothing in my reading suggests it), then such progress drastically slowed some time in the last 70 years.
Heh! I remember prgramming in Z80 machine code on my Dick Smith VZ200. Occasionally (for *very small* bits of code) I'd type graphic chars onto the screen and execute them from there, usually the first few bytes would be "copy me somewhere safe" instructions.
I still remember some of those hexcodes CD -> CALL C9 -> RET
Loading code from tape at 600 bits/second was a bit slow and error-prone. Still, I miss the little thing.
Slashdot Mirror
There is NO SUCH THING as "centrifugal force".
Centrifugal force is as real as gravity. Under relativity, acceleration due to gravity is simply an artifact of choosing a non-inertial frame of reference.
So is centrifugal force.
So in short, anyone who says that centrifugal force does not exist should also say that gravitational force does not exist. In both cases, the apparent "force" is merely due to a convenient choice of coordinates.
Sounds like thermal imaging on steroids
It is thermal imaging. Terahertz waves are at the low end of the far-infrared region of the spectrum. They are produced by thermal radiation of all objects warmer than liquid helium temperature.
Photons do not have mass. They have energy and momentum. The deBroglie relation relates momentum and wavelength. Momentum is not mass*velocity except for very low velocities. The true relation between energy, mass, and momentum is
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2,
where E is energy, m is mass, p is momentum, and c is the speed of light. (In the case where p=0, this reduces to the familiar E=mc^2)
Photons have m=0, so that E = p c.
As for myself, I routinely archive every post in every newsgroup I frequent, indefinitely. Even when I'm not reading it. On a number of occasions, this policy has been extraordinarily useful. Not so much to smear others or even to win arguments, but for when someone (including myself) wants an answer to an InFrequently Asked Question. It typically takes me about 30 seconds to find all previous relevant responses.
Deja's crippling of older achives was quite a blow to me -- I hadn't realised how much I had relied on external archives of groups that I don't normally follow. Troubleshooting in particular is much easier if you can locate someone else's discussion of an obscure problem. I was not surprised when Deja finally died -- they had already gutted it and mangled the interface too badly for anyone to get any benefit from it.
That loss of old posts won't happen again -- I wrote a script to automatically extract newsgroup articles from the archive, and have so far retrieved around 180 MB of history in relevant groups. Even if Google goes under, I'll still have quite a useful archive of my own, albeit limited.
Sure, it's great to get well-presented brochures and catalogs detailed nifty stuff you never knew existed. The first time. The second time, there isn't much interesting info there. By the third, you're ignoring it, and starting to get stuff from marketers who guessed less well what your interests are.
But that's OK, you can just opt-out. It only takes you about fifteen minutes finding their opt-out email address, and composing and sending email. The fact that they accidentally accidentally added your address to their list twice (spelled slightly differently the second time) is easily sorted out by a long-distance phone call in only 60 minutes on the phone, spread over 3 days.
However, the secondary bunch of advertisers are too numerous, or claim to send you stuff just as a "one off" promotion. You don't need to opt out, they promise not to send you anything else. "No, that was a different company who just uses the same publisher." You decide to leave it and just use their (glossy, hard to burn) paper in your wood heater.
Then you move house. The person moving into your new house asks what to do about all this addressed mail that's coming in. You've changed all your addresses elsewhere, so you ask him to just bin it. However, you forgot to change your address in one place out of hundreds, and never get an important letter which really pisses you off. Meanwhile, you're getting pretty annoyed by having to deal with the junk mail coming in for the previous owners of your new house.
So in my experience, it's better to not end up on anyone's mailing list. Now, this isn't life-threatening or anything. In fact, I used to think it was completely harmless too. It's just highly irritating, and overall wastes a lot of your time that they aren't paying for. The inconvenience (not just to you, but anyone who lives where you used to) is absolutely not worth the benefits.
No, IR lasers are incredibly small -- you can pick up an IR laser diode for a few cents. In fact, they're cheaper, smaller and more efficient than visible-light ones. I've built a UV laser, though it it was a fair bit larger than a keychain pointer. I'm sure that it could be easily scaled down.
I think this illustrates how work can skew people's values. In my view, I owe my employer no intrinsic loyalty, nor do they owe me any. Loyalty is for family and friends.
Now an employer can also be a friend, and become deserving of loyalty. But how long would you tolerate a friend who instructed you to do things for them out under such conditions? Not long in my case.
I can understand your wife's reluctance to "leave them high and dry", I've felt it myself. But only because they were deserving of such feelings. It can also come from the knowledge that you're putting more workload on fellow employees who are friends, at least in part. But that's an illusion, because they have no moral obligation to do your work for nothing.
The bottom line is: if the employer cares about being left "high and dry", they shouldn't treat their employees badly. If they don't care about being left "high and dry", why should you?
Actually from part (B) it appears that having the mp3-player in the same hard-drive is OK, as the player software would qualify as
However, you would only want the mp3-player software and programs necessary to "directly or indirectly" play the "fixed sounds". Any other software present would disqualify the hard drive from being a "digital musical recording", from my reading.
I am not a lawyer, of course. (Has anyone seen a lawyer post "IAAL"?)
I do own an ancient second-hand laptop. It's a Pentium 100 based machine, way behind the state of the art. I could have bought one with a better display, but to save money I settled on only 800x600 with 16-bit colour.
So yes, I have used a laptop recently. But no, I don't see why that would mean that I should design my web pages for 8-bit colour. I think the main lesson to be learned from the Webmonkey tests is that there is no web-safe palette.
When designing, you have to remember that some users will even choose to reverse black and white, overriding the document's hints.
I do agree that designers should not assume more than 640x480 displays. Many people, myself included, like to use windows smaller than the full screen. In fact, many websites look horrible in any of 730x1024 (my window size at work), 1024x1171 (my current window size at home), or 1600x1200 (my usual full-screen size at home).
I also pay per MB for my home connection, so 95% of the time, I will have images turned off when I first arrive at a site. If the text content looks sufficiently appealing by itself, or I'm specifically looking for pretty pictures, I might load images. Otherwise, I'll move on to a better designed site.
I don't think so. Extrapolating Moore's law backward to 1930's, even with only a factor of 2 per 18 months, gives 1 operation per day. Somehow I think computations went a little faster than that, and certainly faster than 1 operation per 3 millenia in 1900.
If Alan Turing did indeed propose such a doubling every 12 to 18 months (and nothing in my reading suggests it), then such progress drastically slowed some time in the last 70 years.
Heh! I remember prgramming in Z80 machine code on my Dick Smith VZ200. Occasionally (for *very small* bits of code) I'd type graphic chars onto the screen and execute them from there, usually the first few bytes would be "copy me somewhere safe" instructions.
I still remember some of those hexcodes
CD -> CALL
C9 -> RET
Loading code from tape at 600 bits/second was a bit slow and error-prone. Still, I miss the little thing.
--
Tim Little