sethoflagos

Me too. In particular, I've trying to get my head around the Planck Consortium's finding that the Equation of State for the observable universe is: w = 1.028 +/- 0.032 or w ~ -1 This seems to imply that for at least the more recent part of the last 13 billion years, the universe has been following quite a narrow trajectory between Big Rip and Big Crunch despite significant density and compositional changes. Moreover, recent work by Hooft, Susskind and others have indicated that the Bechenstein limit sets an upper bound on the entropy of any region of the OU in addition to the ever increasing lower bound set by the 2nd Law. Projecting these conditions backwards and forwards in time impose quite severe constraints on the rate of entropy production and in particular the number and different types of particles in play at any given stage in the evolution of the universe. I get a very strong sense that we're missing a major causal factor that is driving the universe asymptotically down a 'preordained' route. If anything in fundamental physics was initially 'plastic', it's as if the fledgling universe took a look into the far, far future boundaries of spacetime and worked out what it had to do to its inner workings to reach that destination. Far-fetched maybe. But I'm still holding a candle for absorber theory, or TI, or the advanced wave of the Schrodinger equation to supply the feedback from the Restaurant at the End of the Universe and collapse all those multiverse options down to one.

Perhaps, but his output remains highly relevant. Wikipedia's article is succinct enough for here: At one level (consisting the vast bulk of it), it is a dry, precise, apolitical, mathematical analysis of capitalist production. Afaik no significant elements of this have been definitively refuted, and it remains relevant pretty well in its entirity. (Which I have read, plus all the background in Grund One central question of moral judgment generates its political content: is it ethically justifiable to simply pocket the surplus value created by the labour of someone else? I suggest that this too remains as relevant a question today as it was 150 years ago. Personally, I believe that only fools and monsters would think this has a simple yes/no answer. Which makes it a particularly interesting question. So I'd urge a little thought before tarring him with the brush of 20th century history. Like it or not, he's up there with his contemporary, Darwin.

No quibbles with that analysis +1

Yes, Credit where credit's due. Agree, I think. The mixed economy model seems to be the best option, particularly when coupled with a fully democratic, liberal(ish) social policy. The increased diversity of this model appeals to me on thermodynamic grounds at least.

Certainly didn't help, though the Social Contract did stabilise Labour's position with the unions. Economic mismanagement by the preceding Heath government, lack of investment in aging industries, the 1973 oil crisis, consequent stagflation and onerous constraints on policy imposed in return for the 1976 IMF loan also played major roles in Thatcher winning the 1979 election I believe.

The British Labour Party that formed the government for most of my youth was essentially a Marxist-Leninist party in that Clause IV of its rule book read: Coming out of WWII, and its necessarily interventionist war economy, we gained a free National Health Service, free schooling and university education, nationalised utilities and transport infrastructure and a few nationalised industries such as coal and steel. Recovery from the war took time, but by the sixties, things had picked up and living in a largely socialised mixed economy under a nominally Leninist government was actually pretty good. Are you suggesting that living in Britain in the '60s and '70s was no better than living under Hitler or Mussolini? Or Trump? I know I'm not going to undo 60 years of brain-washing here (isn't there another thread about this ...?), and as previously stated, I'd not support a fully state owned economy myself, but it IS potentially a fair and feasible option if and when conditions permit, and good will prevails. Like the US then 😉

It is rather difficult to scale-up to nation-state level when the US military and/or their proxies suddenly arrive uninvited. Ask Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua etc Even if victorious, the necessary full focus on defence and counter-espionage tend to greatly influence the nature of the regime that emerges. Effectively installed by US destabilisation of the region, removed from office by communist Vietnam. Yes?

O my, yes! I'd forgotten about him, but your absolutely spot on there.

The Kibbutzim. Let us hope that his political incompetence leads to his disempowerment before his backers manage to fully dedemomocratise the electoral system. Perhaps Europeans of a certain age are more familiar with this imagery. but I can't see Trump speak without being immediately reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmnxcjRk37Q

Thesis could equally well characterise a feudal monarchy for example, while the antithesis sounds to me more like some flavour of anarchism. But it's witty and not too wide of the mark. Who's implementation? A reputable political analyst or Fox News? Okay, Wikipedia's synopsis. The scapegoating of vulnerable minorities comes a little further down the page, but it does come. Always. The same quote substituting 'Communism' for 'Fascism'? Really? Ditch the guff about natural social hierarchy and race and it might pass as a bar-room critique of Leninism but not much else. Communism in it's broader sense is simply the transfer of the means of production into common ownership. No dictator necessary, decentralised options (syndicalism etc), opposition subject only to the tyranny of a democratic vote. Not a communist as such myself but some of the ones I've met over the years seemed to be thoroughly decent people. Characterising them all as Stalin worshippers is a bit crass. Even if it is the 'usual implementation' in some benighted parts of the globe.

There is truth in that, but also I think some confusion between distinctions in economic policy (the left-right axis) and those of social policy (the liberal authoritarian axis). Fascism is not defined by its economic policy, but by a social policy that demonises minority outgroups based on eg perceived race/ethnicity, religion, sexuality, language etc. It is authoritarian by its very nature whatever freedoms it may bestow on its preferred ingroup(s) due to its implicit persecution of those who do not conform to its ideals. In a nutshell, this is the form of society that the OP claims to be superior to any other. On the other hand, Communism and Socialism are fundamentally economic policies to the left side of the spectrum. If coupled in mixed economy form with a liberal social policy you have the archtype European social democracy which consistently poll highest for overall quality of life for all citizens - the Scaniwegians, Switzerland, Canada etc. You know, those countries condemned by the OP as failures. Of course you're right about those examples of the authoritarian left. Right wing vested interests have persistently asserted that this is an inescapable outcome of left wing economic policy. But that's demonstrably untrue. The social democracies previously mentioned prove otherwise.

O, don't get me started! Oddly enough, I spent 1973 at a public boarding school that had an ambivalent attitude towards fascism that I was rather at odds with. 'World at War' wasn't on the approved viewing list so I used to skive off to my nearby Grandmother's house to watch it. Later in life, I was invited to be lead cornet in the West Yorkshire Fire Service Band which among other duties, due to their close ties with the Barmy meant I got to do the Last Post at the Remembrance Day service alternately at Leeds and Bradford. That meant a lot to me. I was very lucky not to be born into 'interesting times', but at least I had some opportunity to show my respect for those who were, and who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Roosevelt's support of the North Atlantic convoys to UK ports, and Barents Sea convoys to Arkangelsk and Murmansk prior to Pearl Harbor was a vital, if often overlooked contribution in the darkest days. My Dad lost a couple of cousins on the Hood and made sure I read The Cruel Sea by Nicholas Montserrat at a very tender age to make clear how brutal that episode was. Well over 50 years on, there are passages from that experience that still haunt my dreams. That and a visit to the site of Bergen-Belsen a few years later shaped a lifelong visceral reaction to Fascist ideology that the world needs now more than ever. I seem to have let a ramble take over that post. Hier legen funf tausand toten.

Thanks for that. Not seen that nugget in any of my field guides. Much about its pesticidal properties, aiding feather flexibility, and colouring hornbill's beaks for courtship purposes. But it seems it's an even greater panacea than generally realised.

If, as many believe, the European theatre was won and lost on the Eastern front, do we not owe a greater debt of gratitude to the former USSR? Just working through the logic of your argument 😉

... I guess typing "Shukria" is against site rules.

Isn't @HbWhi5F in the habit of acknowledging assistance freely given? Or is it a case of cost nowt ergo worth nowt.

By inference, P1 is also in mmHg. They're simply applying PV/T = constant with arbitrary units. Pressure units could equally well be in hundredweight force per acre providing they're consistent on both sides of the equality.

Not to mention the 180 A current the 10 hp option is likely to pull on starting.

Do you have a reference for this claim, as it is very far from my understanding? In passing, I would have thought that comparing the design rotation speed of the motor against the design rotation speed of the driven equipment might have been a first step.

Now you're just being capricious. I leave it to you to discover why the main genus of Nightjars is called Caprimulgus.

It's quite difficult to be sure of the subscripts, but I think there is an error in Eq. 6.8. The author seems to be using Kc for the equilibrium constant of both forward and backward reactions. This is very confusing. At equilbrium: forward and backward REACTION RATES are equal; equilibrium constants equal the ratio of REACTION RATE CONSTANTS for their respective direction; hence the forward and backward EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANTS are the inverses of EACH OTHER. This does not imply that they are each equal to their own inverse. Seems just nuts to me, but hopefully @exchemist or @John Cuthber will be able to provide more expert details of the chemistry here. Simulpost with @KJW : Same idea.

On further research, it turns out that they're a kind of berry. So no probs.

Hasn't the text simply swapped around lhs and rhs to put the quadratic in its standard form?

Two points on a straight line at +1 and -1. Can you post a scan of the source of your equation?