Carrock

The human species is incapable of self annihilation without technology. The current approach of using technology to ameliorate the harm caused by other technology seems a bit illogical.

He's one more turtle than I could think of, and now she's suing me for failing to create her. Fortunately I have a £1 million bank loan backed by a foundational sub prime mortgage.

As long as the turtle at the bottom doesn't think about what he's walking on, everything should be fine.

If something exists and there has to be a creator, then the creator also has to have a creator etc. Turtles all the way down.

Use Maxwell's middle hand rule to determine the sign of the exponent. Exponent size is just a matter of adding or subtracting something ... etc. Ultraoversimplified.....

Possibly. Never tried that. I think it would have to be bright enough to cause pupil contraction and perhaps be too bright to look at without discomfort.

You could try looking at a bright light bulb. In a lucid dream it always looks dim to me. I suspect it's because I can't create the physiological effects of a bright light.

An extreme example: I didn't kill that child in a hit and run. There's evidence the police overlooked which will prove I was robbing a bank at the time. Almost(?) everyone has something, lawful or not, that they don't want generally known and might withhold even if it would be evidence of their innocence of the crime they're charged with. Trump in particular must be concerned about other offences coming to light if witnesses are cross examined under oath. They seem to be claiming he is innocent however dubious their reasoning. So he is not guilty until and unless found guilty. It should be, but for some senators who decided their verdicts before the trial, facts are irrelevant.

Exoneration requires a much higher standard (I think) than does 'insufficient evidence to prove guilt.' At best, if the defence claims are mostly true, the suppressed evidence would likely fail to exonerate Trump but simply add no more evidence of guilt. Certainly, it would be usual and good for Trump to facilitate this evidence if it doesn't harm his case. Acquittal is all Trump can really go for. Doesn't matter so much if everyone is sure the trial was fixed.

It's not unusual for an individual who has not committed a crime to be found guilty in a fair trial. Many people have been eventually exonerated due to improvements in forensics etc but they'd likely have preferred never to be tried and just be left under suspicion. Not guilty is a verdict rather than a statement of innocence. e.g. he probably did it but the evidence wasn't sufficiently convincing. (BTW not defending Trump.)

There's some other comparisons worth making. Banks which got into trouble with e.g. high risk sub prime mortgages got their debts forgiven, to make the subsequent recession less severe(?), while those who owed the banks that money didn't get their debts forgiven, which made the subsequent recession more severe. Or there's the businessman who made a fortune by bankrupting his companies without repaying debts. He's about to be forgiven using $400 million of Ukrainian aid like it was his own money. I don't think many on the left would be too upset at cutting back on these subsidies. Quite a few indigent millionaires would support continuing this limited socialism. x-posted with iNow

I'd be very surprised if there was evidence for this. Reference please.

I wonder if this is a definition issue. I always assumed action in this context was energy*time as I believe Einstein or whoever invented the term intended. That action need not be cause and effect. However from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Einstein which seems to be avoiding the issue. Action does seem to be defined vaguely in other refs too, except for Planck's constant (action or Js). I couldn't quickly find a good reference but I'm sure there are some. If you have entangled photons, each pair with the same (random) polarisation and the distant measurement outcome is the photons are reflected by a polarised filter with orthogonal orientation to a local polariser, giving it kinetic energy, then the action for a given time of that filter is greater than if you have parallel filters with fewer photons reflected. No cause and effect, just a correlation.

So far the actual information seems to be as secret as the reason for assassinating Soleimani. Still, Trump has confirmed it, so it must be true....

"'Wave' in the question is a vague, undefined concept, and any effects on frequency or period of adding energy are therefor not predictable." There's just no better answer without making assumptions which are not mentioned in the question or reference. Surely your teacher will understand that the question is 'wrong' rather than the answer.

This is a perfect answer, but I doubt it would get any marks... What you're writing is educationally valuable but I think OTT for what should have been a simple question. Rachel: You seem to have to have reverse engineered the question and realised the author meant 'photon' rather than 'wave.' However you have unfortunately 'learned' that photon' and 'wave' are interchangeable, which needs to be unlearned ASAP. Wherever you learned about photons it was not from this question! I'll break the letter of 'Homework Help' rules and give you a (slightly) corrected answer. Saying in three different ways that frequency rises and wavelength falls, without repetition, is a challenge in itself... I think you need to mention photons if you go beyond "'Wave' in the question is a vague, undefined concept, and the effects of adding energy are therefor not predictable."

See Studiot also for more clues. I'm being picky, but there's a lack of information here. Maybe p.138 helps. Your answer is correct only if you are referring to individual photons. Is 'wave' in the question intended to be synonymous with 'photon?' It seems that a correct answer is 'not at all.' e.g. a laser produces a 1Watt beam with wavelength 441.6nm. Its power is increased to 10W still at 441.6nm. How has the beam wavelength changed?

Well, that's certainly a terrible punishment for unintentionally killing people. Best not to visit Texas which has more jail options than Iowa... OTOH the maximum penalty in Texas is only 20 years while it's 25 years in Iowa. Generally agree, except I'd be reluctant to replace dangerous manual vehicles with vehicles which may or may not be safer.

No, but I do know the version in place 2 years ago was inferior to the current and future versions. Yes https://www.wired.com/story/guide-self-driving-cars/ I skimmed your year old reference but didn't find anything to support either of those assertions. I did find an interesting quote from it though. More quotes from iNow's reference: Most accidents (near misses, shunts, minor collisions etc) are lumped together so good stats aren't available. A real problem is that drivers are expected to be as alert as if they were driving, as they are regarded (by Musk etc) to be at fault if not. "how does the robot decide whom to hit?" There's a simple solution if the car has to decide between killing an adult or a child. Children rarely have dependents and so on average incur lower liability. My view is that until these cars are fairly definitively proved to be safer than human driven vehicles they should have severe limitations placed on their use and then the car (manufacturer) should be liable for accidents caused by driving error. However having the car rather than the driver responsible for accidents could be a nightmare scenario for manufacturers. Two equally badly driven cars collide and kill people. If you jail the human driver of one what do you do about the other car which is autodrive?

The accident report was published in Sept 2019. Such reports are not available for most recent crashes and software failures may be currently unknown or at least unpublished. Before these reports are published, P.R. is usually misleading. I've noticed in particular that published pre crash video typically is either dehanced (dishonest) or (worse) taken with inferior cameras which (in poor lighting) produced almost invisible images of people etc which would have been readily seen with human eyesight. Have you any evidence that (presumably legal) Tesla auto drive is inferior to other auto drives? It surely seems so. I applaud your self awareness. I was and am aware that A.I. is still only suitable for certain specialised purposes. Would you expect A.I. with suitable tools to be able to build a house unsupervised? Driving a car is usually but not always more error tolerant. Are you saying that going from acquiring an unexpected image to doing something intelligent reliably takes significantly less than 0.5 seconds for A.I.? A reference would be good. Perhaps a decade ago, but this is far from true today and will be even less true in the years ahead. Did you perhaps mean since Jan 2018? At 30mph a pedestrian standing behind the fire engine would likely be seriously hurt. Much better chances at 10mph. Also, 3 times as long for the driver or A.I. to brake/swerve/sound horn and the pedestrian to run.

Again from the Sept 2019 report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49594260 .... The AI detects the gap several hundred milliseconds to seconds faster than the human driver could have (maybe) and initiates acceleration faster than a human idiot could do. At such a time even a human idiot would likely be concentrating sufficiently to notice a fire engine in front of him, panic, and slam on the brakes or swerve without calmly and dispassionately analysing the situation first. My experience with AI is decades out of date, but calmly and dispassionately processing the sudden detection of an object just where human experience would suggest it might be, deciding it's serious enough to require braking or swerving, detecting its size and (zero) speed etc and deciding what to do in 0.49 seconds is a big challenge. AI is great for very rapid response to predictable problems but when it comes to intelligent response to the unexpected, I prefer human parallel processing with billions of years of hardware and firmware development. It's clear that 30mph is far too fast for safe AI cars. For now a partial restoration of the Locomotive Act 1861 might be adequate for P.R. and safety.

A quote from 3 years ago after the first fatal crash.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36680043 A 2018 crash https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49594260 When Elon Musk says "For maximum safety, the driver must abdicate responsibility," autopilot cars may be safer than human driven cars.

Sorry I couldn't embed this... The story of impeachment, by a Christmas choir

Not in my one-off experience. I took a neighbour in her 20s complaining of chest pains to A&E and she jumped the queue as soon as the triage nurse heard the magic words 'chest pain.' (It was 'just' asthma + panic attack.) As unexplained chest pain is always(?) treated as time critical and I'd be surprised if any A&E would normally spend time triaging such patients.

Where is the voltage difference in a transformer secondary which consists of one continuous loop i.e. short circuited output winding?