swansont

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see that it's discrimination specifically based on age, it's discrimination based on the ear's response. It's no more discrimination than my previous example of playing certain types of music that cater to a particular age group. I find rap music generally annoying. I would tend not to shop in a store that played that music, nor loiter in the area. The store, presumably, plays that music because it fits in with the kind of customer to whom they are attempting to cater. I simply don't see that I've been discriminated against. And does that legislation pertain to hiring people, or having them in/around your place of business? Is it age discrimination to pay young people less than older people, or are you paying them different amounts because they have differing amounts of experience?

I'm trying to get you to explain it. Which has more potential energy, the particles by themselves, or the atom after it has formed?

Gee, and there are no people who do things specifically because their parents dislike or forbid it? I don't see how "annoying" is against the law. Can I have someone who smells offensive to me arrested for not bathing? If the sound exceeds a safety threshold, then go after them. (However, the OSHA levels for 16 kHz is 92 dB for 8-hour exposure, and the "mosquito" listed at 80 dB in one article, so I don't think that will pan out. I imagine other countries' safety levels are similar). Otherwise vote with your feet: never shop at a store with such a device, even when you're old enough to not hear it anymore.

So a dance club that plays music that the older generation tends to find annoying — that should be opposed as well, eh?

An aside: I TA'd for a prof who once told me "Wolfgang Pauli was my electrodynamic professor. He was a real bastard." (It sounded even better in a German/Austrian accent.)

Except that the same order-of-magnitude measurement is made twice more in the quote. So it's not a simple typo, though it could still be a math mistake.

And, as you had stated/linked, (part of) the reason for the 9-11 compensation was to eliminate or reduce lawsuits, since it would seem that security, run by the airlines/airports at the time, should have detected metal weapons, amongst other things. So there was some culpability there. My objection was to the Trubune columnist/reporter's assessment that the WTC was "less intimate," as I feel that it was just a matter of someone using convenient, but easily misinterpreted statistics.

I was looking at this again and realized that I never moved the mouse over the picture. My prior explanation only deals with why the image seems to bleed out during the time you are staring at it. The negative image arises basically because your brain assumes a certain white level, so when you stare at colors for a long time, your brain compensates, and then when you look at a neutral area, you esentially see the correction your mind has made. There may (also) be chemical depletions in the pigment reactions that trigger this. I get this "negative" effect when wearing laser goggles that filter red and IR. When you take them off everything has a pinkish hue to it for several seconds.

If you think in quantum terms you are thinking about waves already. In classical thought, you are still thinking of a particle with a well-defined position and momentum, and you have to "smear" that out with the HUP.

Depends on which isotope you have. Co-59 is the only stable isotope. Co isotopes that have fewer neutrons tend to undergo electron capture to an isotope of Fe (I didn't check all of the possibilities; some of the isotopes could possibly beta-plus decay instead of electron capture, but the ones I looked at were all EC), while those with more neutrons will beta-minus decay to Ni. (The magnetic field has nothing to do with inducing the decay, only the spin alignment of the electron that is emitted. Co in no magnetic field will still decay)

I think each game watched is being counted as one viewer.

Since there is a force on the bottom block, the net force on the upper block will be less than 7N, and you need to know that to determine the acceleration. Think of it like this: if you were blindfolded and exerting this 7N, the block would feel like it had larger than a 1 kg mass; the lower block is coupled to the upper. The question is: how much coupling? The top block exerts some force F on the bottom block, and the bottom block exerts -F on the upper (by Newton's third law) and this is obviously limited (it obviously can't be bigger than 7N, for example, since that would leave you with zero net force and no way to start moving the system); the static limit is when the frictional force is 3.5N, so that each block accelerates at (7N/2kg) = 3.5 m/s^2, and the system looks like a 2 kg block. Since the calculated frictional force (i.e. the threshold where friction would fail to hold them together, 9.8N* mu) will always exceed that, I conclude that the blocks are couples all the times, so no sliding takes place, and the acceleration of each is 3.5 m/s^2 Agree or not? Flaws in my reasoning?

Scaling is not a simple matter. Certain physical mechanisms can only scale through a certain range (on both extremes) and still remain functional, because length, area and volume scale with different powers of length. So if you scale something up it may not e.g. support weight properly (and scaled down it's wasted if it's too strong), and e.g. heat dissipation attributes change with surf/vol ratio, as SkepticLance noted. Outside of a certain range you may need to radically alter the attributes in queston in order for them to work (e.g. exoskeleton vs endoskeleton), and whether a pathway is open to that much change needs to be addressed. Lots of things to consider.

I shudder every time I hear or read Ann Coulter stating what someone else believes. Consequently I try not to benefit from her "wisdom" very often.

SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) and Super-Kamiokande (which had a stunning photomultiplier tube implosion pressure-wave chain-reaction in the fall of 2001; more) jump to mind, and there may be others I'm not recalling. These were/are observing solar neutrinos, IIRC, to figure out neutrino oscillation issue.

Rods and cones are not equally disributed in the eye. Rods are more peripherally located and are sensitive to movement, so when your eye is still, the peripheral vision tends to fade and blur. It's also an effect in low light — the centrally located cones are less sensitive under those conditions, so looking straight at something in low light will tend to make it seem like it's fading away. (astronomers are very aware of this) wiki entry on rods that has more detail