a: Titanium is not ferromagnetic, and hence it is not attracted by magnets as strongly as iron is ( the difference in force should be orders of magnitude ). b: Titanium's density is 4.5g/cm^3 , iron is 7.8g/cm^3 c: Titanium is corrosion resistant to dillute sulfuric and hydrochloric acid, iron is not.
Yea, I don't get it. It's simple to distinguish "its" and "it's" as it's merely a matter of expanding "it's" into its full meaning. Then you see "its" is not "it is" as it isn't supposed to be expaned as "it's" is. "It's" does of course expand to "it is" so its usage is as "it is" and not as a possesive "it", as it isn't "it"'s meaning.
the energy required will soon surpass the rating of a standard household connection, but thankfully revolutionsing nuclear systems from Toshiba is promising to deliver lots of luminous joy for Christmas to come.
Infrared radiation is just a different "colour" than normal light. Just like visible light has a spectrum of frequencies so does infrared. Because different frequencies penetrate to differing degrees into an animal's skin I could see it make a difference, but I'm no vet so don't quote me on that.
Temperature is defined in terms of the energy, not speed. At high velocities the mass of particles grow with their speed as per Einstein's theory, so even thou the top speed is limited, energy is in fact not. As a particle's speed aproaches the speed of light its energy diverges. This is in fact WHY you can't accelerate particles to the speed of light. As you get closer to C the particle mass starts growing rapidly so larger and larger amounts of energy is needed for smaller and smaller increments in speed. Thus you can't accelerate a particle to C using only a finite amount of energy. This effectively means that realitivity doesn't limit temperature. There may of course be other limits involved.
I have to wonder about the definition of temperature at such high energies. I would think it would be difficult to envisage a situation where you have anything resembling a Maxwell-Boltsman distribution at 10^33 K, so just what is meant with temperature in this case?
The law itself is sound but they should have made it 2020 with an intermediate period of indirect taxation on incadescent ones starting 2015. I fear this one is too strict and may very well backfire if a latter administration decides to overrule it.
when a company is now shipping solar panels that cost under $1/watt
No they don't, the $1/W price is what they hope getting the price down to with time. Or put in a slightly different way $1/W is a press release from their marketing department which doesn't accurately specify under what conditions it applies.
You shouldn't even be debating the degree to which the government wants to legislate morality.
On the contrary, you should never STOP debating it and you should strie to make sure the politicians know that whichever of them does it more will be losin votes. Make them compete about who will do it the least.
Saving them even gives me trouble, and I've written screen scrapers and a (dysfunctional) web spider. Then again, I don't use flash sites enough to know what the proper ripping tools are, and I use Linux, so the proper tools may not exist for me.
Lol, you do realise it downloads it to/tmp ? You can "rip" them using any file manager or even just "cp". Personally I just run ffmpeg at them with the output directory set to $HOME convertin them to theora in the process.
The courts are not about to let college students steal copyrighted material.
Same about that fourth ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Or perhaps the fifth one:
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Randomly sueing people demanding to take a look at their private data, without having any credible evidence against them, probably doesn't count as "due process of law", and merely being a student at a particular university certainly isn't "probable cause". But hey, I'm sure the RIAA will have no trouble battling a Lawyer factory that has the US constitution on their side. It will probably be as easy as sueing old ladies who don't even know how to use a computer... oh wait a second...
Ok, I was supposed to make a joke about my kernel version here, so I pressed ctrl+alt+enter to spawn a terminal to run uname in. It took me a whole minute until I remembered that I'm visiting my relatives over christmas and that all this free software (firefox, xchat, VLC, Pidgin, Open Office, LyX... ) is actually running on my dad's windows box. Microsoft are going to be in deep shit when KDE is released for windows.
The problem with this efficiency is that your determination of efficiency is the investment centric return on the dollar
No it's not, economic efficiency is defined by the production possibility frontier and is independent upon what current you use to measure value ( here, have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_possibility_frontier ). The efficiency gains of free trade are very real and down to physical limits of production. Simple example, hilly mountanous country close to the sea borders a flat inland country. It makes more sense to have your fishing, electricity production and energy intensive industry close to the sea where it can easily be shipped and powered by cheap hydroelectrics. Meanwhile it makes more sense to have your farms and crops on the flat inland where land is cheap and they are protected from storms. Free trade would allow the two countries to distribute the different sectors of production more efficiently than if they prevented the flow of goods and services. In the protectionist case one country would have to build farms in very mountanous areas at great expense, and the other would be forced to deploy polluting fossil fuel plants due to lack of cheap hydroelectricity.
None of this has anything to do with what currency the two countries use. In fact, it holds true even if they don't use a money based system at all. Free trade is a matter of physical realities. Also, while my above example deals with cases where the efficiency advantage is very obvious, efficiency gains remains in place even for more location-agnostic production. In a region where land is scarce, an office is very expensive. In cold regions it will require more heating during the winter, in hot regions it requires more air-condition during the summer... etc..
Protectionism just doesn't work, and countries that adopt it are just shooting themselves in the foot. Furthermore, you ignore that other countries will retaliate any restrictions you impose upon them. Care to guess how long US limitations on trade would last when the EU, Russia and China decided to return the favour? I imagine Microsoft in particular would get a bit upset if there was suddenly customs on proprietary software as an example.
Btw, I seem to remember that Chimpy wanted to impose steel tarrifs in order to protect American industry some time ago? Remember how rapidly those tarrifs evapourated when some not so pleased Europeans decided it was payback time ?
There is if you're paying for it. Another way to put it is that better specs is better everything else held constant. In reality better specs usually means larger componets, higher prices, more power consumption , etc... and thus "too much" means "soo much the cost of moreis greater than the benefit". It doesn't matter if the cost is very low, if the benefit is even lower.
I want a government that buys from local suppliers whenever possible
The rest of your post is very true, but this bit is flawed. In general it is far more efficient and economical to have a mutual ( and with a focus on mutual ) agreement of free tradebetween countries. There are plenty of reasons for this,ranging from being able to take advantage of economiesof scale to local factors affecting the efficiency of your production. Money spentonoverpriced goods doesnot simply "get back into the market" because youendupstributing resources ininefficient ways. The most sensible policy would be to use whichever suplier provides the best offer without penalising foreign ones, but this relies on one criticall assumption, that the countries you trade with do the same.
This is why free trade agreements (when implemented correctly ) are so powerful. By agreeing not to discriminate against each other's produser countries can use their resources more efficiently than if they were isolating themselves. It is worth pointing out that this doesn't mean that just because an organisation claims to support "free trade" that they actually do. WIPO ould be one good example of what would fundamentally be a sane idea (having an agreed framework of rules regarding the use of creative works ) which has been horribly abused. My key point is that the problems ith these cases is not that they promote international trade ( that is a good thing ) but rather the same old corruption which troubles domestic markets as well as international ones.
Ok, I'm guessing that the staff at the store were not police officers, so I find it hard to see how them doing something wrong would invalidate evidence gathered by the police, provided that the police did everything right. Now IANAL but it would appear to me that it basically boils down to what the police did after receiving the tip, or does US law actually say the police can't act on tips from the public if the public only knows what they know because of illegal actions? I.e, if I a crook breaks in to somebody's home to steal something, then finds a large quantity of drugs, I'd expect that the police would need a warrant to search the house, but surely the mere fact that the crook tipped them of doesn't mean they can't investigate? Thus I'm guessing that the real issue here is weather the police would have needed a warrant to have a look at the computer while it was in repair. What is precedence on that? Does the police need a warrant to search your car while it is being repaired, or can the mechanic just let them have a look around if they want to ?
That single piece of CSS will end the whole "3 column problem" , or even "7 column problem" for that matter. Yes, you could do it with standard html tables, but it isn't nearly as powerful and it is bad form. (To get an idea what I mean with not nearly as powerful, consider that CSS can be dependant on the display media, such as printouts. )
If you think about it for a second, this is the edge of the wedge when it comes to destroying net-neutrality. What happens when they start letting you send documents encoded in their format "for free" or "at reduced cost" ? I bet their customers pay a subscription fee which means that you can just as well view this as charging more for downloading OO.org as it is ceasing to charge it reduced cost. Let this slip and you will soon be paying extra to e-mail customers not on their network. Of course, it will be touted as "free bandwidth if you e-mail customers at this network" , which sounds good, until you realise nothing is free, and that what they are really doing is to charge you for the bandwidth using a subscription fee, and then charge you extra every time you download a competitors product. This will end in anti-trust mark my words.
-Isn't it strange that we exist? -No, God created the world, that is why you exist, hence answering the question once and for all. -But... -ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!
if great minds have grappled with a given subject matter and the answer has remained inconclusive to them, then it is certain that a definitive absolute final answer to the mystery will be found in the comments section of slashdot
I have discovered the most eminent explanation for why the laws of physics exist, but unfortunately it is too long to fit inside a slashdot comment.
It's not that we don't care where laws of physics come from, it's just that we have no testable explanation for it, so rather than bailing out with some nonsense like "goddidit" we merely accept that: For now, we don't really know.
Slashdot Mirror
a: Titanium is not ferromagnetic, and hence it is not attracted by magnets as strongly as iron is ( the difference in force should be orders of magnitude ).
b: Titanium's density is 4.5g/cm^3 , iron is 7.8g/cm^3
c: Titanium is corrosion resistant to dillute sulfuric and hydrochloric acid, iron is not.
If Opera manages to get precedence set for forcing Microsoft to adopt CSS standards, imagine the implications with regards to ODF and PDF....
Ww need more soap, lots of it. Let's make this slope as slippery as we can.
Yea, I don't get it. It's simple to distinguish "its" and "it's" as it's merely a matter of expanding "it's" into its full meaning. Then you see "its" is not "it is" as it isn't supposed to be expaned as "it's" is. "It's" does of course expand to "it is" so its usage is as "it is" and not as a possesive "it", as it isn't "it"'s meaning.
the energy required will soon surpass the rating of a standard household connection, but thankfully revolutionsing nuclear systems from Toshiba is promising to deliver lots of luminous joy for Christmas to come.
Infrared radiation is just a different "colour" than normal light. Just like visible light has a spectrum of frequencies so does infrared. Because different frequencies penetrate to differing degrees into an animal's skin I could see it make a difference, but I'm no vet so don't quote me on that.
Temperature is defined in terms of the energy, not speed. At high velocities the mass of particles grow with their speed as per Einstein's theory, so even thou the top speed is limited, energy is in fact not. As a particle's speed aproaches the speed of light its energy diverges. This is in fact WHY you can't accelerate particles to the speed of light. As you get closer to C the particle mass starts growing rapidly so larger and larger amounts of energy is needed for smaller and smaller increments in speed. Thus you can't accelerate a particle to C using only a finite amount of energy. This effectively means that realitivity doesn't limit temperature. There may of course be other limits involved.
I have to wonder about the definition of temperature at such high energies. I would think it would be difficult to envisage a situation where you have anything resembling a Maxwell-Boltsman distribution at 10^33 K, so just what is meant with temperature in this case?
The law itself is sound but they should have made it 2020 with an intermediate period of indirect taxation on incadescent ones starting 2015. I fear this one is too strict and may very well backfire if a latter administration decides to overrule it.
No they don't, the $1/W price is what they hope getting the price down to with time. Or put in a slightly different way $1/W is a press release from their marketing department which doesn't accurately specify under what conditions it applies.
On the contrary, you should never STOP debating it and you should strie to make sure the politicians know that whichever of them does it more will be losin votes. Make them compete about who will do it the least.
Lol, you do realise it downloads it to
Same about that fourth ammendment:
Or perhaps the fifth one:
Randomly sueing people demanding to take a look at their private data, without having any credible evidence against them, probably doesn't count as "due process of law", and merely being a student at a particular university certainly isn't "probable cause". But hey, I'm sure the RIAA will have no trouble battling a Lawyer factory that has the US constitution on their side. It will probably be as easy as sueing old ladies who don't even know how to use a computer... oh wait a second...
Ok, I was supposed to make a joke about my kernel version here, so I pressed ctrl+alt+enter to spawn a terminal to run uname in. It took me a whole minute until I remembered that I'm visiting my relatives over christmas and that all this free software (firefox, xchat, VLC, Pidgin, Open Office, LyX ... ) is actually running on my dad's windows box. Microsoft are going to be in deep shit when KDE is released for windows.
No it's not, economic efficiency is defined by the production possibility frontier and is independent upon what current you use to measure value ( here, have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_possibility_frontier ). The efficiency gains of free trade are very real and down to physical limits of production. Simple example, hilly mountanous country close to the sea borders a flat inland country. It makes more sense to have your fishing, electricity production and energy intensive industry close to the sea where it can easily be shipped and powered by cheap hydroelectrics. Meanwhile it makes more sense to have your farms and crops on the flat inland where land is cheap and they are protected from storms. Free trade would allow the two countries to distribute the different sectors of production more efficiently than if they prevented the flow of goods and services. In the protectionist case one country would have to build farms in very mountanous areas at great expense, and the other would be forced to deploy polluting fossil fuel plants due to lack of cheap hydroelectricity.
None of this has anything to do with what currency the two countries use. In fact, it holds true even if they don't use a money based system at all. Free trade is a matter of physical realities. Also, while my above example deals with cases where the efficiency advantage is very obvious, efficiency gains remains in place even for more location-agnostic production. In a region where land is scarce, an office is very expensive. In cold regions it will require more heating during the winter, in hot regions it requires more air-condition during the summer... etc..
Protectionism just doesn't work, and countries that adopt it are just shooting themselves in the foot. Furthermore, you ignore that other countries will retaliate any restrictions you impose upon them. Care to guess how long US limitations on trade would last when the EU, Russia and China decided to return the favour? I imagine Microsoft in particular would get a bit upset if there was suddenly customs on proprietary software as an example.
Btw, I seem to remember that Chimpy wanted to impose steel tarrifs in order to protect American industry some time ago? Remember how rapidly those tarrifs evapourated when some not so pleased Europeans decided it was payback time ?
Woooooooooooooooooosh!
There is if you're paying for it. Another way to put it is that better specs is better everything else held constant. In reality better specs usually means larger componets, higher prices, more power consumption , etc... and thus "too much" means "soo much the cost of moreis greater than the benefit". It doesn't matter if the cost is very low, if the benefit is even lower.
Sure, but Buddha makes incremental backups.
The rest of your post is very true, but this bit is flawed. In general it is far more efficient and economical to have a mutual ( and with a focus on mutual ) agreement of free tradebetween countries. There are plenty of reasons for this,ranging from being able to take advantage of economiesof scale to local factors affecting the efficiency of your production. Money spentonoverpriced goods doesnot simply "get back into the market" because youendupstributing resources ininefficient ways. The most sensible policy would be to use whichever suplier provides the best offer without penalising foreign ones, but this relies on one criticall assumption, that the countries you trade with do the same.
This is why free trade agreements (when implemented correctly ) are so powerful. By agreeing not to discriminate against each other's produser countries can use their resources more efficiently than if they were isolating themselves. It is worth pointing out that this doesn't mean that just because an organisation claims to support "free trade" that they actually do. WIPO ould be one good example of what would fundamentally be a sane idea (having an agreed framework of rules regarding the use of creative works ) which has been horribly abused. My key point is that the problems ith these cases is not that they promote international trade ( that is a good thing ) but rather the same old corruption which troubles domestic markets as well as international ones.
Ok, I'm guessing that the staff at the store were not police officers, so I find it hard to see how them doing something wrong would invalidate evidence gathered by the police, provided that the police did everything right. Now IANAL but it would appear to me that it basically boils down to what the police did after receiving the tip, or does US law actually say the police can't act on tips from the public if the public only knows what they know because of illegal actions? I.e, if I a crook breaks in to somebody's home to steal something, then finds a large quantity of drugs, I'd expect that the police would need a warrant to search the house, but surely the mere fact that the crook tipped them of doesn't mean they can't investigate? Thus I'm guessing that the real issue here is weather the police would have needed a warrant to have a look at the computer while it was in repair. What is precedence on that? Does the police need a warrant to search your car while it is being repaired, or can the mechanic just let them have a look around if they want to ?
Will they properly support: display: table
That single piece of CSS will end the whole "3 column problem" , or even "7 column problem" for that matter. Yes, you could do it with standard html tables, but it isn't nearly as powerful and it is bad form. (To get an idea what I mean with not nearly as powerful, consider that CSS can be dependant on the display media, such as printouts. )
Well, it doesn't matter too much as there are other options in Sweden, but will these be sold in Europe?
If you think about it for a second, this is the edge of the wedge when it comes to destroying net-neutrality. What happens when they start letting you send documents encoded in their format "for free" or "at reduced cost" ? I bet their customers pay a subscription fee which means that you can just as well view this as charging more for downloading OO.org as it is ceasing to charge it reduced cost. Let this slip and you will soon be paying extra to e-mail customers not on their network. Of course, it will be touted as "free bandwidth if you e-mail customers at this network" , which sounds good, until you realise nothing is free, and that what they are really doing is to charge you for the bandwidth using a subscription fee, and then charge you extra every time you download a competitors product. This will end in anti-trust mark my words.
-Isn't it strange that we exist?
-No, God created the world, that is why you exist, hence answering the question once and for all.
-But...
-ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!!
I have discovered the most eminent explanation for why the laws of physics exist, but unfortunately it is too long to fit inside a slashdot comment.
It's not that we don't care where laws of physics come from, it's just that we have no testable explanation for it, so rather than bailing out with some nonsense like "goddidit" we merely accept that: For now, we don't really know.