The Euro zone treaties made this situate inevitable. They prevent Greece from running a deficit or devaluing their currency in order to subsidize their economy during a down-turn.
Actually they only really stop Greece from devaluing their currency. If they stopped Greece from running a deficit there would not be this huge debt which is causing the greeks all these problems.
Only if the competition can avoid the taxes. If all of the players in the market get hit with the same taxes, then all of them absolutely can and will raise prices, and there will be no consequences.
You are making an assumption here that the size of the market is fixed which is not true. The problem businesses are trying to solve is to maximize their profit. If raising their prices by 10% to cover the tax on the profit from that product means that they sell 20% less of the product they would be stupid if they did that.
This can happen independent of competitors. For example if Amazon increases the cost of its ebooks people might just read less or use the library more. This could happen even if everyone selling books increased their prices by the same amount. There is not a fixed number of book purchases which happen every month.
I think you're missing the point
Actually he has a very good point. The article is wrong: there is just as much mass "beneath your feet" since technically the entire planet is beneath your feet. The point is that the mass is, on average, located further from your feet near a mountain because of the thick crust which floats on, and displaces, the far denser mantle. The gravitational field depends not just on the mass but on the distance as well.
What I don't understand is how this counts as 'news'. The effect was discovered by the British Trigonometric Survey of India where they noticed a discrepancy in their measurements caused by the fact that the 'vertical' was not the same near the Himalayas. This was well over 100 years ago...hardly news.
The north pole and a circle of lat 1 + 1 / (2 * PI) north of the south pole.
Actually the answer is the north pole and a circles of lat 1 + 1 / (2*pi*n) north of the south pole where n=1,2,3,4... etc. plus there is a slight correction because the surface of the earth is not entirely flat and so the circumference of a line of latitude is actually less than 2*pi*s where s is the arc length from the line to the south pole for the distances involved it would probably be negligible compared to surface defects.
And ironically, math is the most useless subject we learn and should be severely curtailed in high school.
Really? So you clearly have never built anything (especially in the US where you use all those fractions of an inch). I'd also watch our for those government tax collectors if you did not use any maths to fill in your tax return....and that's before we even mention finances with interest rates etc.
I strongly suspect that you use maths a whole lot more than you realize...unless you really are a genuine troll and live in a cave.
Assuming a reasonable pressure (no trains with flanged wheels trying to drive down the highway) then the damage comes from axle load and not pressure for standard road building materials.
Yes but the strength of materials is usually measured by elastic modulus which has the same dimensions as pressure. Hence, although a bike will elastically deform a small area of the surface with the pressure it applies, it will deform it more than a car with lower pressure tyres. However I doubt this is where the damage comes from but rather from the motion of the vehicle. The dynamic load of a car travelling at speed will be many, many times greater than a cyclist who is less massive and slower moving. Similarly for lorry it will be many times larger still than a car. We would need an engineer to confirm but I expect that this is where the damage comes from since the dynamic load can be many times larger than the static one.
In other words, we see further into the past by much more than a single year for every elapsed year
No, the universe was opaque until the plasma cooled and released what is now the CMB. We cannot see further back in time with light. Hence the only reason we can see further into the past each year is because that event (the universe becoming transparent) is getting further away from the present. Currently the amount of that event we can see is increasing - a trend which will eventually reverse due to dark energy - but it all occurred ~380k years after the Big Bang. So the only way we see further back is to let the present get further away or use something other than light like neutrinos.
Does it mean that, as time goes on, we're going to be able to see farther back in time and space?
Obviously the answer is yes because, as time goes on, the period at which the CMB was emitted moves further into the past so obviously we are seeing "further back in time" but only at the rate of one year further per year past (on average). Since the universe is also expanding we are also looking further. This is about as insightful as pointing out that as time goes by I can remember events further back in time.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
