swansont

They're just files, so you can copy them (including backing them up) just like any other data. Drag and drop. If they are DRM-protected, they won't play on the other computer unless it's authorized to do so. What you can't do, I think, is use iTunes to burn them to a disk as data.

There's also speculation that the "200 million" was actually rupees, which is plausible considering the purported source, and the conversion to dollars was an error in interpretation. That would inflate the cost by a factor of ~44 Edit to add: Anderson Cooper "You don't have to make stuff up" http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/11/04/ac.obamas.india.trip.cost2.mov.cnn (BTW, there's a story using an anonymous source on the internet which claims that Michelle Bachmann spends close to $50 million a day of government money on cosmetics.)

I don't think anyone has claimed it's 100%, but there is a separation. It isn't absolute, just as there are forms of speech that are not protected and you can't possess nuclear arms. AFAIK the "evolution debate in school" has ultimately been decided against teaching religion every time it has gone through the courts in the US. Same with school-led prayer, for that matter.

E = hv gives you the energy per photon. So what would be the energy for n photons?

I've booked rooms for official government travel many times. The government paid for them. Is there any credible source for the $200 million a day number? No. The White House is the only source that could, and they say it's wrong. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/11/obamas-india-trip----not-as-expensive-as-you-may-have-heard/1

It gives the physics professor a chance to smugly remind you that you were supposed to earn it in the math prerequisite. It's a conspiracy against students who proclaim they'll never use the math they learn, and as a cautionary tale for the ones who tend to treat math and science subjects as compartmentalized, stand-alone classes.

Laser diodes have large divergences as well as astigmatism, and it's not trivial to correct both simultaneously. Cheap laser pointers have cheap optics. And then there's speckle

I think it's fair to say that the (double) refraction of water does not depend on whether there is an observer.

It's not the momentum lost to air as much as the energy — if the sound is isotropic, there is no net momentum to it. But you assumed an elastic collision in the analysis. Since momentum and kinetic energy are related, if energy is lost to sound your calculation of momentum will be in error. I suspect this is still a small effect, as sound doesn't carry a lot of energy, but there will also be energy lost due to heating and deformation of the material at the contact point.

! Moderator Note This will cease, right now. You can and should point out where someone is in error, but accusations of lying and other personal attacks aren't going to fly

You aren't entitled to restrict what constitutes evidence for evolution (or any science, really) in this way. Why is a video or picture the only empirical evidence you will accept? If, for the sake of argument, you assume evolution to be true, is a video the kind of evidence one would expect to have? Is it even remotely close to the only evidence one would expect to have?

I'm not sure that's the case in the US. I was under the impression that you can only be compelled to pay the portion of dues that goes toward collective bargaining and other non-partisan union activities. edit: http://www.nrtw.org/foundation-won.htm Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and Ellis v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, et al.

In the ideal case the collisions are elastic, so there is no possibility to lose energy other than by colliding with the walls of a container. But the container has energy, too, so if it's maintained at the same temperature nothing will happen, overall. In reality gases radiate electromagnetic energy when they collide, or can cause excitations which then release EM energy, but they absorb it, too, and will eventually reach equilibrium with whatever the background level is. A gas sample in deep space would eventually reach 2.7K, regardless of what state of matter that represented.

! Moderator Note cabinintheforest, I have removed the bulk of the Gribbin article from your post, as it is copyrighted material, and it is against the rules to simply copy & paste such articles in their entirety.

I'm pulling these quotes from the Stupid Liberal SOB thread, so as to not derail it My link In fact, there is further evidence that it is not merely intended to prohibit the creation of a state religion: My link I think saying that separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution is like saying that right to own a gun is not there, either. If I were to propose the latter, I would probably be laughed out of whatever thread where I had posted it. The exact phrase isn't there, but the sentiment is.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51175-natural-global-warming/page__view__findpost__p__561087

IOW, it's illegal when a church does it. When a labor union does it and follows those guidelines, it's not "getting around" a regulation. Everyone is allowed to contribute money to an organization that campaigns for a candidate. What they can't do is use tax-deductible contributions to do so.

I don't see where that says that the people who accompanied Bush paid their own way. As far as the economy goes, if there's a chance the president can open up new markets for US exports, isn't this in fact the best time to go on such a trip?

I think jackson33 has already pointed out that electioneering is illegal within some distance of a polling place entrance (I usually see 100' or 150'; it probably varies by location) so unless the line was very long, that was indeed illegal. It's illegal when a church does it. Any entity that is tax-exempt under 501-c-3 of the IRS code is prohibited from campaigning or "substantial" efforts to influence legislation. http://pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=913

I seem to recall you made this claim in another thread and then had to backtrack because you couldn't defend it. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51175-natural-global-warming/

What are the arguments that public radio is no longer beneficial? I've only seen monetary/competition arguments here, which must presume that the existing services have value. If they didn't, there would be no potential commercial product, and no whining by the author about government funding affecting competition. Contamination (minimizing noise) is the reason you have sections of the spectrum set aside.

Hey, Bush visited India in 2006. http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/mar/01bush25.htm http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=63504 I guess he had a big entourage, too. And it wasn't just that one one hotel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4766670.stm Whaddaya say — remotely close?

NPR does compete, though it's with other nonprofits (American Public Media, Public Radio International and Public Radio Exchange) and with locally produced content. I don't see why another nonprofit could not be created to compete with NPR. But that doesn't seem to be the author's intent — doesn't just want to provide content, he wants to make a buck at it, above and beyond a salary he'd draw, and I do have a problem with that. It says that all speech that is broadcast has to be commercial. It says "if what you say can't draw a large enough paying audience, screw you. You have to pay if you want the first amendment." What do you tell the students at your local college radio station, when the school decides that tuition and fees are already too high, and a commercial broadcast license isn't in the cards? "You aren't worthy of the right to free speech. It's only for the rich, or at least people with jobs." Once speech is a commercial commodity, what then? This ties directly into net neutrality, too. If you can pay, your message gets out there faster. If you can't, slower or perhaps not at all. He didn't call for them to stop, and he did call for the cessation of money to NPR. Why is this surprising to you? He doesn't want government money subsidizing broadcasting, period. While we're at it let's make radio astronomers pay for their spectrum, too, or auction it off if they can't ante up.

As I indicated earlier, I'd like to see a defense of earlier trips by other presidents. Why is this one being singled out? Because it's 10 days long? Is it more efficient to fly to Asia once or more than once? Should he break the trip down into separate trips to India/Indonesia and South Korea/Japan? By all means, investigate the itineraries and expenses and compare. Here are the trips http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_trips_made_by_the_President_of_the_United_States In his first two years, Obama looks like he will have made 16 international trips. GW Bush made 11. Clinton made 8. GHW Bush made 15.

I understand the metaphor, and I was not asking for substantiation. The problem I was attempting to point out is that the more I have to decipher what someone else says, the harder it is to communicate. If I have to assume that you meant something other than you wrote, then all bets are off. Case in point — your response indicates you did not understand the point I intended to make in my post. Whose fault is that? Obama is not literally in bed with unions.