mezarashi

Somehow I feel alot of condescension reading through this thread. I guess its always better to never mention "you" in a heated debate else it may be that others can take it as a personal attack.

For fifteen thousand years we've been trying to figure this one out. We finally take a few steps forward' date=' and people like you want to act like it's nothing new, nothing special, nothing unique, not an improvement. Hey, all I can say is, good luck with that. You want to wail and gnash your teeth and beat yourself up over the small stuff, go right ahead. The rest of us will fix the problems and move society forward.

[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here or how you've come to a conclusion on things, but I was simply trying to make a point on the thread's topic and my stand is: Terrorism is a valid war tactic. It is effective. It works when you have no means to go to war otherwise (i.e. going one on one head on with the US army isn't going to be effective). I apologize if circumstances caused straying from the original discussion or misunderstanding of my stance.

I'm not sure. I'll have to do some tests of my own on my speakers I would probably think that the pluggin would have a filtering effect rather than an antenna-like effect. Filtering to mean low-pass filtering, so that the lower bass can't get through as well, but again I'm guessing. Gotta try it out.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Gandhi was a revolutionary patriot and he advocated non-violence, let alone terrorism.

I think bascule meant to say that some revolutionary patriots can be considered as terrorists who have won the war. Better phrased, a terrorist can become a revolutionary patriot if he succeeds. One is a subset of the other. It's not to say that all revolutionary patriots are terrorists.

If you don't take it so literally you can see what he means. The Indonesian government are fighting rebels and terrorists everyday. But if a day ever comes that they win independence, they will be known as liberators and heroes (atleast in their books).

Similarly, F16s dropping heavy bombs all over your town can be "terrorizing". This is probably going to get comments on the collateral damage vs intended civilian targets, but I rest.

My overall response remains the same. I feel that their actions are justified in war. Let us question the objectives of war then. What would you want from an outcome of a war. What are the circumstances in which you are considered victorious. But these questions have nothing to do with winning the war. Bin Laden tells his generals, we're going to win this war no matter what. The generals go out and try to win the war as told. They doesn't know why they're fighting, but they just need to do as told. Motives are different from objectives.

I say again, I am in no way upholding their rationale for the war itself. I think the war is silly. I have NO idea what the world they are fighting for, but if it is indeed a war, then this is part of what you can expect. It is all to achieve some kind of victory you can say.

Sure they might fail, but shouldn't that TELL them something?

So does this conclude that if one country is weaker than another, they should all surrender? Sounds pretty easy for most western European nations to take over the rest of the world.

I don't understand this notion that if you don't get what you want then you have the moral authority to escalate the conflict to any degree.

Well this is war' date=' who sets the rules? The winning side? Again, back to the objectives of war. Differentiate objective (desired outcome) from motive (reason for fighting).

Are the people Al Qaeda claims to represent really so bad off? They don't seem to think so -- most Arabs and most Muslims seem to think that Al Qaeda's actions are wrong.

I think what Al Qaeda is doing is wrong. But what the US is doing is wrong as well. However, what the US is doing is perfectly fine if war is the case, and what they are doing is fine if war is the case. It's sad there must be war, but a losers can't be choosers. They need to target what they can.

If "western democracy" was some sort of dictatorship that ruled with an iron fist' date=' enforcing military might upon its enemies and allowing no freedoms at all, then I could at least understand their zeal (if not their self-destructive methods). [/quote']

As I stated, I also do not know why they are fighting. It's a very stupid war.

 

How is it better to let Al Qaeda get what it wants, and build a Middle East where freedom is almost as distant a memory as the sight of a woman's face?

Well of course, we won't give Al Qaeda what it wants. That's why there is war. People go to war for the stupidest of reasons. History has told us that, and I think 9/11 and Iraq has reinforced it. But I can't complain about their tactics. Maybe it's our tactics that are wrong.

Your first question would be like asking, why is the equation E = mc^2 true. I certainly don't know.

As for the units, it's an arbitrary matter. If you want your energy in Joules, then use c= 3e8 m/s, or if you want them in microJoules etc. If you start using non-SI units you will not get Joules however. I don't have such a chart.

Analyzing the units:

mc^2 = kg m^2/s^2 = Joules

I don't think that British guerillas under Nazi tyranny would have resorted to killing civilians.

Then what would you propose that they do? Or more realistically, put yourself into the shoes of Al Qaeda, fighting against the strongest and one of the largest conventional armies on Earth. I'm not saying that either the US or the "terrorists" are right. War is always awful, but I think the things they have done are justified in a war (considering their circumstances), although the war itself is not.

Smells like work. A really hot topic would be the notorious bird flu. I have no idea where you could get scholarly papers for bio-chem related stuff however. Good luck... and I hope grad school doesn't such that much >.> (I'm going there soon)

P.S.

I guess I just posted cuz your nick somehow resembled "****girl". Just pretending to be a girl gets you 10 times the attention. I'm a victim !!

Depends on the level of access you have with your account. If you can freely view all files on the computer, then doing what I suggested earlier shouldn't be a problem. Else you tell the lab technician you want to install something, he logs on and when he's not looking create yourself a new admin account... and don't tell anybody I taught you that trick

Hi mezarashi

 

Is this the brief you found interesting?

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/info.pdf

 

There is also his more academic-sounding article---more history' date=' more technical detail

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/phyadv05.pdf

 

Would you recommend either or both. Did you find something else?[/quote']

 

Yes, I read the supplementary article, not the technical one. Usually those are very difficult to read, unless you are of course in the research field and honestly it didn't make much sense to me at this point.

 

The prize is somewhat a new inspiration for me to pursue research in photonics. Fortunately and coincidentally, I am already majoring in photonics at undergraduate level, and alot of factors have strongly pursuaded me to continue to the graduate level. I'll definitely be looking into that the potential of quantum optics and I'm already talking a bit about it with my optoelectronics professor. I just feel very intrigued by the potential of optics and how it can revolutionize our next generation of electronics and of course, way of life.

All user profile information is stored and can be accessed with an admin account in:

C:\Documents and Settings\XXXX

where XXXX is the username of your user of interest. This includes bookmarks, temperory internet files, desktop items, start menu items, user defined application data and settings, and other temp files. You just need to figure out a bit how to read all the data stored there.

As far as I know, there's no exact formula for these types of questions... I'm not sure, I think I may have seen some before, but they were not very intuitive formulas. The best way to go is to start from the fundamentals. That is, worst case scenario to worst case. This works whether you want to do multiplication, addition, tan, sin, etc.

If you understood what I was talking about earlier about the geometry, you can derive this very easily as well. What is the worst case each way. For the angle to be as large as it can, you have the situation (A + B)/(C - D). For the angle to be as small as it can be, you have (A - B)/(C + D) assuming all the variables A-D are positive. You can find the margin of error then in doing

tan x1 = (A+B)/(C-D)

tan x2 = (A-B)/(C+D)

delta x = 1/2 (x1 - x2)

delta x = 1/2 ( arctan[(A+B)/(C-D)] - arctan[(A-B)/(C+D)] )

Pluggin in the variables, you will get your answer.

Do an experiment to find its mass, then its volume. Density = mass/volume.

correction:

http://www.writingforums.com/

A very nice resource indeed. Although I guess you can't be sure of the quality of the editing, heck it's free in any case. One thing though, I'm not sure where I should post if I wanted someone to go through the grammar and integrity of my upcoming works. Don't want to post in the wrong section If you could point that out, it'd be great, thanks.

Exponential problems are based on e! It is a very special number that when used in functions like f(x) = e^x or also written as exp(x) create a unique type of distribution. The most notable thing is that the rate of change in the function at any value of x IS the value of x at that point.

If you could elaborate on what the variables in your T=SR^P mean, I may be able to help you there. I really have not seen anything resembling that as far as I can recall.

If you look at it from a geometric point of view, You have say a right triangle, whose sides A and B are uncertain. You know that for any A or B, you can find the angle doing arctan. Worst case scenarios: You can see that if A remains constant and B gets longer, the angle will change. The same happens if A gets longer while be is constant.

Using this concept, I think it is easier to imagine why there is an ambuguity in the angle of about 3.8 degrees or so.

Wow, after reading that brief, you can realize of the great great potential all of this work allows for. The precision laser also sounds like really great stuff. I thought the blue laser and Intel's silicon-based laser was exciting, but this just beats it all.

Just thought I'd get your thoughts on this.

Is the earth overall losing energy.

 

All responses welcome

I think it's not really important to say whether the Earth is losing energy in total or not' date=' but rather if the energy we need for our race's survival and our planet's survival is being lost. It wouldn't make much sense to convert our kinetic rotational energy into a ball of fire so we can all burn and die miserably is it? And freeze to the death on the other side.

hw can u say say we put out more energy than the sun,

I didn't see this being mentioned. It may be contreversial however about whether we are emitting more radiation back into space than we are receiving from space (the sun mainly), but the greenhouse theory would probably say otherwise.

do u mean to tell me that the net entropy for earth is more than that of the sun.

I've never heard of the relationship between a system's entropy and its ability to put out energy. This may be an indirect deduction I don't know of. It'd be great clarification.

It's pretty hard to generalize a rule for all molecules. When you have four or five different species involved in many different hybrid bonding. If it were such an exact science, we probably wouldn't need the atomic-width microscopes to probe nano structures. There is a general theory however which is quite meaningless in complex systems (due to its mathematical complexity), that is the valence shell electron repulsion theory. It's works with simple compounds like CH4. It says that the electrons will arrange themselves geometrically such that the repulsions between them is at a minimum as so system is at its lowest energy possible.

maybe I`m wrong here, but aren`t the last few posts just a rehash of what I said in the 1`st place?

Not including the ambiguous "unequal expansion of solids" theory and the "large fluctuation in energy levels" idea, I would agree. I just wanted to put it in more scientific terms ^^

Heat like most other physical processes must diffuse into or out of a material. Cracking occurs when the temperature gradient along the cross-section of a material is great enough to produce strains beyond the material's elastic range.

Metals generally won't crack because they allow very large strains (they are very elastic), and also have a yielding range where they tend to deform rather than fracture.

Yes, this is very real. The "signal" is a wireless LAN signal. They can cover 20m to 30m. Most universities have a wireless LAN network. Anybody with a card can get access. Most corporate systems now are implementing a security check of course, meaning once a connection is established you must log in with a proper user/pass to gain access. Most home users however don't use this or don't know about it. I heard stories of so many friends who are stealing their neighbor's internet. Many people install an unprotected wireless network and obviously the signal can cross the border.

So these ions are'nt dangerous to us ? I mean what about alpha radiation, it is basically a Helium ion and if it penetrates, its trouble ! Thats the example i couldn't understand.

No, ions floating around are not "dangerous", although the effect of prolonged exposure to rather unnatural substances is unknown to me.

What makes alpha particles dangerous is that when they are produced, they are usually come with high kinetic energy. High kinetic energy means they are able to penetrate atomic nuclei and thus mess up your cell's DNA, which will eventually kill you in sufficient doses.

An ion gun for example will probably kill you as well if you touch it at the wrong place... that's because they are usually charged at say in the thousands if not sometimes millions of electron volts. It's the transfer of energy that's scary, not the ion.

Can you give me an example of them existing on their own ?

There's no reason why ions can't "exist on their own". They won't interact "specially" with the air. The question's a little ambigious but I'll take it as whether you can find ions in nature. Ions are charged, meaning that they will tend to be attracted to other things around. There necessarily needs to be opposite ions to counter this. In nature, you find ions dissolved in water as the disassociation of a neutral molecule. It would be rather difficult to find large amounts of ions elsewhere because of charge buildups.

In the laboratory of course this isn't a problem. Charged ions are used all the time like in mass spectroscopy or for wafer milling like in focused ion beam systems.

By average acceleration, you would mean FINAL VELOCITY - INITIAL VELOCITY over TIME. But the problem is you don't know the final velocity, initial velocity is zero. It's better you use the kinematics equation:

d = vt + 1/2at^2

where d is displacement, v is inital velocity = 0, t is time, and a is constant acceleration.