The funny thing is, quickly factoring large numbers becomes useless as soon as it is possible. The only use is in public key encryption, and if everyone stops using public key encryption, then that application of quantum computers dies.
As a student I can say that I think it is absolutely ridiculous to outlaw students working together.
If you don't want cheaters getting free points, then don't make homework worth a grade! Make it a study tool. I have had multiple classes like this, and it was wonderful. The ones that were easy for me, I just glanced at the solutions. I didn't have to waist time on busy work. The tougher classes I did the homework when it was assigned, and learned because of it. If I couldn't solve a problem, it wasn't a huge deal because I could look at the solutions.
Tests are your tool for "testing" the students knowledge. Homework is for learning. It just so happens that many people learn better from their peers. Especially in physics and math!!!
The free market works because those with similar goals band together. Working together with other people isn't socialism. Socialism is having a governing body telling you how to work together.
This is the same argument made by Alcoholics Anonymous, who also happens to have a success rate equivalent to that of the control group.
In reality, it is only you yourself who can cure these types of diseases. Having help is nice, and important, but not absolutely necessary. A person with enough will power could cure himself. Of course, such a person probably wouldn't be in such a situation anyways, so there is a bit of a paradox in my statement.
The biggest things separating the people who suffer from depression from those who don't are:
1) Healthy Diet 2) Healthy amount of sleep 3) Healthy amount of exercise/activity
Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain by definition - the chemical imbalance isn't the cause (well, not directly). Everything your brain does is a chemical reaction, so it doesn't really give you any information. Anything differing from the "norm" is a chemical imbalance.
I've suffered from depression, but I didn't go to a doctor because I knew it would pass eventually - IF I took care of myself.
I'm sure there are extreme cases in which a person's genetics plays a major role. Those are most likely the extreme cases in which medication really will help.
The great thing about a free market approach to energy is that you don't have to analyze energy use. All you have to do is look at the price. It will take into account energy used.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily account for environmental contaminants, which is basicaly how we got into this mess in the first place.
Percent of the greenhouse gas effect on earth caused by the following gases: Water: 36-70% CO2: 9-26% Methane: 4-9% Ozone: 3-7%
This actually hints at one issue many people always seem to overlook in relation to the greenhouse effect on earth:
If we hold constant all the greenhouse gases except water, then raise Global Average Temperature (GAT) by 1K (or 1 degree Celsius), more water vapor (on average) will be evaporated into the air. If we assume that this will lead to a higher global time-averaged amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, then we can infer that more solar radiation will be absorbed (greenhouse effect). Without a counteracting effect, such a process would lead to even higher temperatures, which would produce more vapor, in effect accelerating with time.
However, due to weather patterns, the assumption that the time-averaged amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would increase is not necessarily true. So let's consider the opposite extreme - the time-averaged amount of water vapor stays the same. How is this possible? Well, over a long enough period of time evaporation and precipitation can be assumed to be in equilibrium. Therefore, if evaporation increases, so must precipitation.
In reality, a combination of the two processes is most likely. So, we would get accelerating temperature increase and higher global time-average precipitation rates.
Now, we KNOW from data collection that the GAT has raised nearly 1K in the past 200 years. So, from the argument stated above, it should be fairly acceptable to predict accelerating temperature increase and higher global time-average precipitation rates.
On a different note, we also know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 30% in the past 200 years. Considering it can be proved in the laboratory that CO2 scatters radiation very effectively, it is understandable that it could cause a greenhouse effect. Basically, radiation from the earth is absorbed and scattered back toward earth, where some of the scattered radiation will be absorbed. Eventually equilibrium will be reached in which Earth's temperature is high enough that enough radiation escapes the atmosphere to counterbalance the amount of solar radiation. However, a similar argument can be made about solar radiation incident on earth. Some will be scattered back before it can heat the Earth. So, the pivotal question becomes the following:
Does C02 trap more radiation from the earth than it reflects from the sun?
A rigorous answer is beyond my knowledge, but the greenhouse effect depends on the answer being yes. If the answer is no, then putting more C02 in the atmosphere should cool the earth down.
history is full of some of the best art (visual and musical) ever created A truer statement has never been made. Given, it doesn't really tell me anything, but thats not the point!
But seriously, I completely agree with your arguments. The problem here is that artists want to do nothing but create art, but - like most people - they want money. How can they accomplish these goals? Well they can do it the hard way, or they can do it the easy way. The easy way happens to involve legislation.
Exaclty! Complex numbers are really just a separate dimension. You can solve all 2-D problems using complex numbers. OR you can solve them with vectors. It's really the same thing. In most cases complex numbers are easier.
Of course then there are Phasors, which are something entirely different. They truly are just a mathematical trick.
It might be true of mainstream religion now-a-days. They were originally formed to explain phenomenon (most importantly life and death) that had not been explained.
However, today they are supported by people who don't care about the true explanation. These people prefer an explanation that goes like this: "It is so because God says it is so. You must BELIEVE this or you will have something bad happen to you." Only un-inquisitive types believe these types of explanations.
Of course, then there are still the inquisitive people who have "belief" so deep rooted in their mind, that they will never change.
I prefer to take nothing for granted. Never make assumptions, and you will never be wrong. Then again, perhaps there is no objective truth, in which case no one is right. I don't "believe" that either, though.
Unless you consider Boron(11) and Hydrogen. If you fuse the two, you get unstable Carbon which decays into helium. You also have the added bonus of no neutron radiation, making it much cleaner.
That is why you have people you personally know and trust that will band together to fight any such bullies.
The only thing keeping this from happening now is the risk of prison.
In an anarchy, the risk of death would be more than enough to keep this from happening.
Of course there will always be people who will try anyways, but they won't win forever. If their existence depends on stealing from others, they have to continually take that risk. Odds are - they will lose once. Once happens to be enough, because they would be unlike to live to try again.
Unless they become so abundant that the definition of the word "Christian" becomes redefined. Not to mention that churches teach that the only thing you need to get into heaven is unfaltering belief that jesus is the sun of god, and that any transgressions will be forgiven.
Of course there will always be people inside a group that view certain others affiliated with said group as non-members. Case in point: You.
I don't really see a need for regulation of cable companies at all.
They aren't filling a need, only a want. Let the cable company charge as much as they can get. If the people don't like it, they can read the newspaper.
FCC should stick to regulating wireless communication, and that's it.
The internet is slightly more complicated, as it basically is a "need" in this day in age.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing is, quickly factoring large numbers becomes useless as soon as it is possible. The only use is in public key encryption, and if everyone stops using public key encryption, then that application of quantum computers dies.
As a student I can say that I think it is absolutely ridiculous to outlaw students working together.
If you don't want cheaters getting free points, then don't make homework worth a grade! Make it a study tool. I have had multiple classes like this, and it was wonderful. The ones that were easy for me, I just glanced at the solutions. I didn't have to waist time on busy work. The tougher classes I did the homework when it was assigned, and learned because of it. If I couldn't solve a problem, it wasn't a huge deal because I could look at the solutions.
Tests are your tool for "testing" the students knowledge. Homework is for learning. It just so happens that many people learn better from their peers. Especially in physics and math!!!
The free market works because those with similar goals band together. Working together with other people isn't socialism. Socialism is having a governing body telling you how to work together.
The diameter of an atom is on the order of 1 Angstrom (0.1 nm).
Planks constant is on the order of 10^-34 J*s.
Basically, the uncertainty is dominated by the size of the atom.
Actually, the odds are decent that somewhere in that fire, one atom fused with another.
Of course that one atom is one out of around 10^24 atoms per cc.
But if you are combusting the hydrogen, you can just reuse the resulting water.
This is the same argument made by Alcoholics Anonymous, who also happens to have a success rate equivalent to that of the control group.
In reality, it is only you yourself who can cure these types of diseases. Having help is nice, and important, but not absolutely necessary. A person with enough will power could cure himself. Of course, such a person probably wouldn't be in such a situation anyways, so there is a bit of a paradox in my statement.
The biggest things separating the people who suffer from depression from those who don't are:
1) Healthy Diet
2) Healthy amount of sleep
3) Healthy amount of exercise/activity
Depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain by definition - the chemical imbalance isn't the cause (well, not directly). Everything your brain does is a chemical reaction, so it doesn't really give you any information. Anything differing from the "norm" is a chemical imbalance.
I've suffered from depression, but I didn't go to a doctor because I knew it would pass eventually - IF I took care of myself.
I'm sure there are extreme cases in which a person's genetics plays a major role. Those are most likely the extreme cases in which medication really will help.
"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving."
-Albert Einstein
The great thing about a free market approach to energy is that you don't have to analyze energy use. All you have to do is look at the price. It will take into account energy used.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily account for environmental contaminants, which is basicaly how we got into this mess in the first place.
mod parent +5 Informative!
Israel has pyramids?
(Yes I got the joke, but Israelites didn't build the pyramids. They were built by paid Egyptian laborers.)
Percent of the greenhouse gas effect on earth caused by the following gases:
Water: 36-70%
CO2: 9-26%
Methane: 4-9%
Ozone: 3-7%
This actually hints at one issue many people always seem to overlook in relation to the greenhouse effect on earth:
If we hold constant all the greenhouse gases except water, then raise Global Average Temperature (GAT) by 1K (or 1 degree Celsius), more water vapor (on average) will be evaporated into the air. If we assume that this will lead to a higher global time-averaged amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, then we can infer that more solar radiation will be absorbed (greenhouse effect). Without a counteracting effect, such a process would lead to even higher temperatures, which would produce more vapor, in effect accelerating with time.
However, due to weather patterns, the assumption that the time-averaged amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would increase is not necessarily true. So let's consider the opposite extreme - the time-averaged amount of water vapor stays the same. How is this possible? Well, over a long enough period of time evaporation and precipitation can be assumed to be in equilibrium. Therefore, if evaporation increases, so must precipitation.
In reality, a combination of the two processes is most likely. So, we would get accelerating temperature increase and higher global time-average precipitation rates.
Now, we KNOW from data collection that the GAT has raised nearly 1K in the past 200 years. So, from the argument stated above, it should be fairly acceptable to predict accelerating temperature increase and higher global time-average precipitation rates.
On a different note, we also know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased about 30% in the past 200 years. Considering it can be proved in the laboratory that CO2 scatters radiation very effectively, it is understandable that it could cause a greenhouse effect. Basically, radiation from the earth is absorbed and scattered back toward earth, where some of the scattered radiation will be absorbed. Eventually equilibrium will be reached in which Earth's temperature is high enough that enough radiation escapes the atmosphere to counterbalance the amount of solar radiation. However, a similar argument can be made about solar radiation incident on earth. Some will be scattered back before it can heat the Earth. So, the pivotal question becomes the following:
Does C02 trap more radiation from the earth than it reflects from the sun?
A rigorous answer is beyond my knowledge, but the greenhouse effect depends on the answer being yes. If the answer is no, then putting more C02 in the atmosphere should cool the earth down.
But seriously, I completely agree with your arguments. The problem here is that artists want to do nothing but create art, but - like most people - they want money. How can they accomplish these goals? Well they can do it the hard way, or they can do it the easy way. The easy way happens to involve legislation.
Exaclty! Complex numbers are really just a separate dimension. You can solve all 2-D problems using complex numbers. OR you can solve them with vectors. It's really the same thing. In most cases complex numbers are easier.
Of course then there are Phasors, which are something entirely different. They truly are just a mathematical trick.
And yet I still use 2000 over XP. Does that mean I should use vista?
Doubtful. Because the only windows programs I need will work on 2000.
And why are you farting lightning bolts and monkeys?
That isn't entirely true.
It might be true of mainstream religion now-a-days. They were originally formed to explain phenomenon (most importantly life and death) that had not been explained.
However, today they are supported by people who don't care about the true explanation. These people prefer an explanation that goes like this: "It is so because God says it is so. You must BELIEVE this or you will have something bad happen to you." Only un-inquisitive types believe these types of explanations.
Of course, then there are still the inquisitive people who have "belief" so deep rooted in their mind, that they will never change.
I prefer to take nothing for granted. Never make assumptions, and you will never be wrong. Then again, perhaps there is no objective truth, in which case no one is right. I don't "believe" that either, though.
I think CIGS are currently less durable than single crystal SI cells. I could be wrong on that though.
Did they just compare murder to copyright infringement?!
Wow... Just Wow...
Unless you consider Boron(11) and Hydrogen. If you fuse the two, you get unstable Carbon which decays into helium. You also have the added bonus of no neutron radiation, making it much cleaner.
p + (11)B -> 3 (4)He + 8.7 MeV
That is why you have people you personally know and trust that will band together to fight any such bullies.
The only thing keeping this from happening now is the risk of prison.
In an anarchy, the risk of death would be more than enough to keep this from happening.
Of course there will always be people who will try anyways, but they won't win forever. If their existence depends on stealing from others, they have to continually take that risk. Odds are - they will lose once. Once happens to be enough, because they would be unlike to live to try again.
Unless they become so abundant that the definition of the word "Christian" becomes redefined. Not to mention that churches teach that the only thing you need to get into heaven is unfaltering belief that jesus is the sun of god, and that any transgressions will be forgiven.
Of course there will always be people inside a group that view certain others affiliated with said group as non-members. Case in point: You.
All the major food sources have been "heavily modified genetically".
It's called selective breeding/pollination.
Direct gene manipulation is pretty much the same thing, but faster and more precise.
I don't really see a need for regulation of cable companies at all.
They aren't filling a need, only a want. Let the cable company charge as much as they can get. If the people don't like it, they can read the newspaper.
FCC should stick to regulating wireless communication, and that's it.
The internet is slightly more complicated, as it basically is a "need" in this day in age.