studiot

Of course it is, and wouldn't it be a louis armstrong world if everyone implemented that. The problem is the real world where we can make the trivial divide into those who will and those who won't eat tapioca pudding, but can't do the obvious.

Thank you for your contribution, Zet. Interesting (though not suppose unusual) that someone else has has a similar idea. elfmotat I see no simultaneity issues with antimatter annihilators in a thought experiment. However I am sorry that I should have allowed the destruction apparatus in the thought universe. So pointing such issues out is how an idea develops.

Yes I can confirm that the power is 10.19 watts, by another method. PE lost by 3kg mass = KE gained by system + Work done against friction. From the figures given 1.5*3*9.81 = 0.5*5*(3.8)2 + WF 8.045J Power = WF/t P = 8.045 *3.8/3 = 10.19watts. I agree with your acceleration and time calculations, again by a slightly different method. I am looking more closely at your method to see if I can spot the error.

You should always remember that our simplifications are models or idealisations. As such they have limits of applicability, so always be aware of the conditions of applicability of your model.

In general it is the shear strength, not the tensile strength that is important with adhesives.

Well your colleague is having a joke at your expense. "pounds per ton" is not a measure of strength. Strength could be measured (calculated) in pounds weight or tons weight under for a standard size and shape of sample. You might like to think about the strength of rope or fishing line which can be specified in pounds, meaning the force required to break that rope or line.

Personally I think the number zero is the most interesting since all other numbers can be constructed from it, without the need for any arithmetic. I do not know of any other number for which this is true. It is also a proper member of most sets of numbers (unlike infinity).

Well yes quite a lot more is required to even formulate your question properly. Firstly the strength of the tissue and the strength of the fibres themselves are different things. Which do you want?

All three of Newton's laws always apply in classical mechanics. But you need to apply them correctly. Solids are often considered as a single body for the purpose of mechanics. But this only works if the applied force is not sufficient to break up the body. If the force is sufficient to break the body we have to consider the pieces individually as single bodies. With liquids and gases even a small applied force will penetrate and therefore break up the body. But if we consider the individual fluid particles then Newton's laws work. As to editing, I find that sometimes the edit button that you see at the bottom of your post does not work properly. If you click the edit button then go to Use Full Editor, the edit button works then

Most people want to have as little to do with them as physically possible, especially if they are killers.

Tim. since you are online, I had a couple of discussions with you, but discontinued them when you attacked me, even though I actually supported your view. My support is not uncommon as I often support the underdog when I see 'ganging up', even if I don't agree with his argument.

Thanks again for the response, but the whisky has flowed too freely to answer tonight. I will be thinking again in the morning, but your equations implied that charge is time independent and that all the charges that ever were in the universe were created all at once (how?) and cannot be uncreated.

I was told, when I got my bus pass, that I automatically made the top 1%

Well my wife works for the NHS and was 'upgraded' 2 weeks ago. (Almost) nothing now works, and the comp techs have taken up residency in Pharmacy. But if you truly want 7, then come to Somerset. Mondie, XP has something (if implemented) that Vista and above gave up. The Limited User. I have seen so many users insiste they must have administrator privileges, then get hit. Quote from Russinovich (you have heard of him?)

Which makes me glad I'm in the 95% -100% bracket.

Well I could point to many businesses that use XP regularly as their workhorse, from Shell International, to Best Western Hotels, to small businesses like Blackberries restaurent in SW UK ........... Sorry to disappoint. It is only governments with too much money (haven't they all) that can afford to upgrade willy nilly.

That is what interests me. I think you will find the others are possible, at least in a thought experiment. I did not say there would not be consequences, but to just dismiss it out of hand is too slick and simplistick. But thank you for replying anyway.

So the figures were from those logging on to Wiki, not those using computers? How many commercial computers are there that are doing the job they were intended for and where the employee could not or should not log on to the internet, in general or Wiki in particular? For instance in a company network, often, every user logs onto the company home page as standard, but most user's only legitimate use of the net is company Email.

That's why I apologised for not making myself clear. A serial killer kills again and again and.... - by definition. The character in the story expresses poetically the cost to humanity of allowing such a person(?) to carry out their to carry out their desires. Someone other than the serial killer must die. This sad fact is also true in reality. That is one side. The other is exemplified by the observation that murderers are not on average deterred by the (legal) death penalty. Also that the post-war French are not noted for pussy-footing around when it comes to security. Their response is noticeably more John Wayne/ Tom Clancey than US administrations themselves. So which is better? For the serial killer to die or for another serial victim to die?

Sensei You are referring to market share in 2014, not the total number of working installations in use. Since it is now difficult to buy a new machine with XP, I'm suprised how many are claimed in Wiki figures.

Do you have referenced statistics to back this up? I provided some (sorry I can't vouchsafe their sources but they are referenced so those who know can check)

You clearly didn't understand my original post. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clearer. I'm contrasting two different statements, ideas or whatever under one banner since they appear to me to be opposed, not in the least because they perhaps do not overlap in their coverage of all the conceivable circumstances of killing people.

Consider the following thought experiment. Suppose we have two charges in an otherwise empty universe, stationed a distance d from each other. Suppose also that we have buttons we can press that will destroy one or simultaneously both charges. We can easily calculate the potential energy associated with this setup, but what happens to it if we press the 'nuke both' button? Further if the charges are in relative motion and we nuke only one, what happens in the relativistic time before light can reach the second one to 'tell it' there is no longer any potnetial energy?

This is a quote from another thread where it was off topic and , I hope, said in jest. Today I reveived the following from a technical news service I subscribe too, I found it wryly interesting.

All this economics assumes the 'case' goes to trial. It hasn't in France. It did in the case of Saddam. What do you do with a pack of rabid dogs about to make a meal of your sister?