swansont

The latest version of their DRM (Fairplay?) lets you upload purchased music through your iPod. But only things purchased after version 2.0, AFAIK, and on authorized computers. Anyway, when I've done this it's been on a Mac, but once it was an ethernet cable and the other was firewire with one computer in target disc mode (mounting the second computer as a firewire drive) If you do ethernet on a Windows machine you'll probably need a crossover cable or a hub. (Macs can do a direct connection). Remember to set the IP addresses to be different.

"Massless box with perfect mirrors" is an unphysical assumption. Once you do that, you really can't draw any valid conclusions.

Question 1 would be answered (partly) by explaining what tarnish is, chemically, and what kinds of reactions would remove it. Question 2 would be answered by identifying some commercially-available tarnish removers, since (presumably) the scientists working for those companies researched it. You might also search for household-hints for removing tarnish.

In a word, no. Absorption spectra that identify the "light of the universe" follow from atomic structure that is explained by quantum mechanics.

http://www.answers.com/topic/hydrogen-line?cat=technology 1420 MHz (21 cm) is a very popular frequency (wavelength) for radioastronomy

Yep. In the LA area, sunrise was at 5:45 AM, sunset will be at 8:09 PM (all PDT) http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php (use ~ 34N, ~116W if you want to "move around" the area) Move up to San Francisco, and sunset's ~ half an hour later

A rotation means an accelerating frame, so you could (in principle) tell if you had undergone a rotation.

That's probably wired into the the circuitry of the device. This won't charge up just any device — they have to be outfitted with a proper pickup loop. You'd probably put a small circuit in to sense the charge and disengage charging when it's finished.

Or longitude. Time zones are nominally an hour wide, and sunrise/set times vary accordingly.

You may or may not have quoted someone out of context. Compare post 148 and what is quoted in 149. They do not match — a sentence is missing. And iNow made it pretty clear he was discussing Hurricanes, and asked you to return to that topic. Got it? You're trying to steer the topic away from hurricanes, and iNow is trying to steer it back, because you said "The reverse may be true for hurricanes, but that still has not been proved, in spite of 2005 being a bad year." iNow was attempting to engage you on that remark.

Most f the energy released in fission is forms other than gammas, an making gammas interact where you want them to would be exceedingly difficult to do efficiently.

What are the enthalpies of formation for those reactions/products?

It explains a lot more than the Bohr model does. Energy levels are about all it explains correctly. The Bohr model does not account for different orbital angular momentum states, in fact, it gets the ground state wrong — the Bohr model has [math]L=n\hbar[/math] and yet the n=1 state in Hydrogen has no angular momentum. And what of fine structure, hyperfine structure and Zeeman splitting? There's a whole bunch of structure tot he atoms that isn't explained by the model. It's wrong That it gets the energy right is not enough for me, and shouldn't be enough for anyone.

The solar costs probably do not reflect large-scale commercial production, and may be an average including residential roof-mounted units, which are more expensive per kWh. or it assumes some average insolation, which obviously varies with location. Solar has reached grid parity in some places, such as Italy.

But then, there's no formal mathematical proof of Maxwell's equations or Newton's laws, etc. either. The behavior of nature is deduced from empirical observation, not formal mathematical proof. Can you explain the no-cloning theorem, and what this might have to do with mutation or abiogenesis?

Actually, no, it's not. Insults are not going to be tolerated, but ad hom is a personal attack being used as a response in an argument. If a person did happen to be ignorant of some topic, pointing this out and substantiating it would not be an ad hominem attack. But, as I said above, insults won't be tolerated, and being insulted does not give one leave to retaliate. iNow is talking about hurricanes. You're (mostly) talking about other types of storms. Which means that your point is not currently in contention. Are you conceding iNow's point about hurricanes? If so, move along.

Bombard it with nuclei in a fusion reaction. It won't happen with chemical processes.

Since the Bohr model is demonstrably wrong, what implications does this have on your model?

If that is indeed the case then the post would then be justified. So I conditionally apologize and retract that admonishment.

Moved to speculations

Do not, do not, do not tread down this path. Since the wavelength changes in a medium, how is energy being conserved?

Surely you've learned that you can't convert heat into work with 100% efficiency. That's where entropy comes into play.

The uncertainty principle is not an observer effect. That's a common misconception.

The time factor is relevant when we're discussing humans, since 1000 years is a long time in our reckoning. This isn't "You will be able to move back into your home because the flood waters will eventually recede" because of a storm — that's a few days or weeks. This is "50 generations from now the temperatures might drop." Big difference. And the circumstances are not the same. Whatever mechanism capped the temperature rise included a set amount of CO2 cycling between the atmosphere and ocean, and possibly terrestrial locations. We've broken that by dumping a whole bunch of extra CO2 into the atmosphere, some of which gets dissolved in the ocean. Looking at what happened historically is of limited value under that circumstance — you can't naively use the past as a predictor of the future and conclude that things will happen the same way. If you're going to respond to things like this, don't cut off the sentence that explains why the person thought the argument was stupid.

Motor Daddy has been suspended for one week for trolling. This includes deliberately dragging out discussions to an absurd degree. This disruptive behavior persisted after being warned several times.