Meanwhile, fans dislike copyright because it creates an imbalance between quality vs. convenience (cracked software is ALWAYS better) or availability (a movie or game isn't available in a certain region or is no longer sold).
That's not about copyright, that's about copy protection aka DRM. Copyright doesn't prevent the act of copying, it just provides a legal defense against it.
Ender's Game - A great morality play; and a very exciting read.
I've read it, and liked it, but "exiting" was not the impression it left on me.
It read almost like a documentary: everything was detached, without emotion. There was no real pacing; things just happened when they had to happen.
But really, make sure The Bible is on the list.
Meh. I read it, but didn't like the ending.
I wonder how much of the occasional health panic that springs up around wifi - and indeed other technologies - can actually be attributed to the high pitched hums that can be emitted by badly manufactured devices.
It may be in your case, but I don't think that's the cause in most cases. I can also hear very high pitched sounds (transformers, bats), and while they can prevent me from sleeping, they don't make me sick otherwise.
I think the more general mechanisms at work are mass hysteria and the nocebo effect (placebo's evil twin), as evidenced by this story.
My point was that mathematics is a science. That it is a formal science instead of a natural science is a different matter all together.
Because string theory isn't science!
Sure it is. It's abstract mathematics.
Each trigram is 3 lines, each hexagram 6 lines. The lines are either full line or broken and represent one bit each (1 or 0).
the surface, even though it would be frozen solid in about 6 seconds after exposure to space
Seems I read too fast and missed some crucial words. So that's more probable.
But I think it would look more like an icy explosion of gas, like a comet tail. My guess is that it would be too violent to allow a crust to form.
Of course, putting a large volume of water in space at once is a hypothetical scenario.
even though it would be frozen solid in about 6 seconds after exposure to space
That's Hollywood science. It would actually start boiling and freezing at the same time.
If it managed to form an icy crust, this would stabilize the pressure and stop the boiling and freezing.
If it was massive enough, the gaseous water would form an atmosphere that would also stabilize the pressure. Otherwise it would probably just boil away into space over time.
With the pressure stabilized, it would only lose heat through black body radiation, which would take a long long time to freeze it because water holds large amounts of thermal energy.
The interesting thing is that the vast majority of the universe is in the "everything else" zone.... contemplate that one for a while...
Hmm, I don't think this is correct, depending on what you mean exactly.
When we talk about the universe, we usually mean the observable universe. Since we receive light from all parts of the observable universe (it's observable after all), that means we are in the future light cones of those locations (each roughly an expanding sphere in 3D+time). If we can see something, it can effect us.
But, not all of those places are in our future light cone. Because of the metric expansion of space, which causes accelerated growth of the universe, our sun's light will never reach the outer regions of the observable universe, and we will never be able to travel there unless we find some way around the restrictions of general relativity (unlikely).
The voters are the ones who keep voting for status quo. If they really are desperately unhappy they should vote for something else.
Let's explain this fallacy with an illustration.
Notice how the last digit in the first case remains unchanged, as expected.
It only remains unchanged because it rounds down.
N[Sin[1], 48] will end with
N[Sin[1], 47] will end with
Calculated on Wolfram Alpha.
How to not have your cars catch on fire is another issue
:P
Oh, that one is easy actually. You start with a spherical car in a vacuum...
Cat pictures make the best meow-monics?
Geosynchronous, and especially geostationary orbit exists. So while you're correct, there's nothing to stop us from putting an object into decaying orbit where atmospheric impact will not cause significant enough friction to burn it out.
We just choose not to.
The ISS orbits between 330 km (205 mi) and 435 km (270 mi).
Geostationary orbits are at 35,786 km above sea level. That's about 35,000 km higher, and about 1/11th of the distance to the moon.
We choose not to put stuff there because:
a. Its expensive to put stuff in such a high orbit (more powerful rockets, more fuel)
b. It's pretty far from earth, so not very convenient to get to/from, especially in emergencies.
Furthermore, an object in a decaying geostationary orbit (going at about 3 km/s) would speed up along the orbit the closer it gets to earth (basic orbital mechanics), so eventually it would still have enough speed to incinerate largely in the atmosphere.
Any stable orbit has an associated speed, which is what Deadstick was saying. You seem to imply that we choose that speed so stuff will burn up on reentry, which is nonsense. It is estimated that 25% of a large satellite will reach the ground. At best they control (speed up) the orbital decay, so that debris will splash down in an ocean.
Don't panic.
