abskebabs

I just played the sample, and it sounds similiar, but a little higher pitched to what I hear with my tv. In fact it seems after hearing these noises they still sem to be ringing in your head!

OMG, I thought I was going mad! I hear high frequency sound all the time, but not necessarily when I go to a store and most likely when I'm on my own. Is this different to what is being talked about here? It's kind of like that noise you hear when you just turn on your tv, its high pitched like that. Or maybe I am just mad... ...I don't notice after a while though unless I pay attention it(thank goodness! ). Actually, come to think of it, most of the time I hear it after turning on my tv but I still hear after I turn it off and walkaway. It doesnt seem to stp unless another sound eventually drowns it out.

I thought holland were a bit lucky today, and serbia unlucky as well. But still overall, Holland are a quality team and a joy to watch though. They did look a bit vulnerable in defense though. At least they didnt choke in the 2nd half like England tho . Are Holland ever going to play total football again(like they did in the 70s I hear with Johan Cruyff and Johan Neeskens)? That would definitely be fun to watch!

The guy was a legend, I've done a whole coursework on early Quantum theory in general, as well as having mentioned his work on the de Broglie wave hypothesis. As well as the matter/ wave duality stuff, he was also the first to suggest an alternative interpretation of Quantum theory that David Bohm later refined. This is the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation(surprisingly enough). Bohr's expression for angular momentum can also be derived using de Broglie's momentum relationship in an easier way(in my opinion). It goes as follows; [math]2\pi r= n\lambda[/math] [math]2\pi r= \frac{nh}{p}[/math] Therefore:[math]rp= \frac{nh}{2 \pi}= mv\nabla r[/math]

Very interesting, and I was thinking the only 2 major research areas were string theory and loop quantum gravity:-p ! I share your feelings about string theory being the only major research area in this field being pursued by American universities(apart from PSU)? By the way what is being researched at Penn state? I remember another theory, I have seen recently by Matti Ptikanen(I think thats how his name is spelt!) at Helslinki University. It is titled Toplogical Geometrodynamics. Have you heard of it?

Hmmm... What is your opinion on David Bohm's ideas about holography that he published several books on before he died? He set out with an approach to understanding the Universe rather tan with Mathematics like the string theory. I would presume, had he lived longer, he would have started building up a mathematical theory? Do you think further building on his ideas could provide a pathway to an alternative theory. Also what are your opinions on Milo Wolff's Wave structure of matter theory? I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you meant.

From what I know of it, I am skeptical of string theory to say the least, I think it pales in comparison in comparison QM and General Relativity for example, but I acknowledge I have much more to learn before I can have an educated impression of it. Can you give me any reason why string theory/M theory should not be considered as mathematical nonsense wrapped up in jargon, to put it bluntly?

I've been a little late to coment on this thread, but I think killing individual terrorist leaders probably has less of an impact in combating terrorism, than other perhaps more subtle methods. Terrorism for instance is much more than just the acts of violence themselves, it permeates from a deep rooted ideology. It is this and the many euphemisms that come with it that we must relentlessly fight. This will be very difficult, and represents a much greater challenge than any conventional conflict. To destroy Al Quaeda, or any other organisation we have to destroy and discredit its central ideas. In fact, I would say this is exactly what organisatons like Al Quaeda are doing against America and te West. Needless to say, I think there are many things I have missed and I doubt the "war on terror" be this straightforward. Considering specifically, Zaqarwi as an example; I think the US miliary dealt him a greater blow in rubbishing his image when they exposed tapes of him being so meek that he could not fire a gun without trembling. This may have provided a dent in his following. Having said that, whatever they obtained from the house he was staying at could be vaulable intelligence and help them find out more about the workings of these terrorist cells. To know your enemy is halfway along the path to defeating them. America need to seriously consider their foreign policy, and the image they project to the world. Perhaps if they realised this, and looked at the wider picture, they would be more hesitant in allowing Israel to arrange its borders, autonomously like they are allowing them to. They cannot consider ppl to be fools, and expect to improve impressions of America in the middle east with approaches as minimalistic as increasing propaganda(as Donald Rumsvelt likes to believe they can). Above all, my emphasis is, if this is a "war", as it has been so often labelled, it is a mental, social and ideological war, that permeates much further than the cold war ever did to this level. The world will never defeat this enemy, unless it reanalyses its values seriously, and takes action in this direction to change itself. Terrorists, in the end are political oppurtunists, no matter what their individual beliefs are. That is my input on this matter.

Does anyone have an answer to my question? I'm sorry if it seemed like a statement as I made a grammatical mistake and left no question mark.

I'm supporting England, but I'm remaining cautiously optimistic about their chances. I think the team itself is great, it's just I think Sven(the manager) makes some rash tactical decisions and substitutions sometimes. But I suppose he's a good manager overall, and ppl don't give him the credit he deserves, but I digress. I hope England win, and they have a fair chance, and Brazil are the only team I could label as favourites. Hope you all enjoy the world cup;) , and btw, I'm just curious how many of you in the US are following it. I was surprised when I found out the US were ranked 7th in the FIFA rankings(England are only 9th!), so I have to say they have improved a lot recently.

I'm not making a prediction, but I think Brazil are favourites, followed by England if they play to their full potential, as well as Holland or Argentina. There are a whole host of other teams which I haven't mentined, that I don't think you can count out. I've got a feeling(or I hope more accurately) there will be some big upsets this time round, should make things more interesting.

This a pretty addictive and fun puzzle game. I thought ppl might be interested in so here's the site: http://www.microgames.info/game_info.php?products_id=205 They've also got another decent game in their logic section called Parking zone whch is pretty good too. Here's the link for that: http://www.microgames.info/game_info.php?products_id=241 Have fun!

It seems while revising, I have come up with another question related to this topic. Why is the derivation of the doppler effect for EM waves different to that of sound and water waves as an example, and consequently, why is the relationship [math]\frac{\bigtriangleup{f}}{f}= \frac{v}{c}[/math] only approximate when dealing with EM waves(when v<<<c), when it is exact(as far as I know) for sound and water waves. Also on a side note, what is the sign for an approximate equals in latex? I would have put it in the above equation, but as you can see I don't know how.

I see, then the only hope of change is if there is a popular backlash against corrupt political parties by the populace. A recent example of this would be the election victory of Hamas over Fatah in Palestine. Hamas were seen as a more honest party with a better reputation, so they instead were voted in by the ppl. I could name another example too. In India there recently was the formation of a new political party by IIT graduates. This party is radically different from other parties, and has gained a lot of support from the youth and middle class, who usually shy away from the polls. If the established political parties have a reputation for corruption, then this will play into the hands of another if it can keep its reputation squeaky clean. I suppose I have ended up answering my own question, corruption can only be removed when the public are fed up of it, and vote into power a political party committed to remove it. Of course this political party has to be formed by a group quite different and distinguishable from the regular politicians.

I agree with you but I think you als have a few misconceptions and things that you may have missed out. For example, my physics teacher recently told me there were more physicists in the city(meaning financial part of city) than business graduates. A lot of science degrees have transferrable skills that are highly valuable in other careers. The same goes with engineering, which can incorporate a lot of science itself(mostly maths and physics, but chemistry and a little biology too in chemical engineering). Personally, when I was young I was never interested specifically in "science" but in how the world and things worked. It helped that when I was young I had a lot of encyclopedias and books round me that I avidly read. I came up with wacky ideas and inventions, but being the impractical type never made any. I recognise the practical part of science gets a lot of ppl interested, but that was and still is the part I dislike the most:-p ! Things like science fiction helped too, even video games like command and conquer red alert! Perhaps leaving kids left in a room with nothing but books and encyclopedias for a certain portion of the day, without tv and things like that might help. After all boredom is often the mother of invention and creatvity. A lot of kids seem to get frced into too many clubs and things by nagging parents nowadays that they lack this vital(in my opinion:D ) bored time. Things like the discovery channel could help, however I do admit there is a lot of rubbish on it, but that's just my opinion. Space always seems to interest ppl in physics for example, but for a while now I have found it one of the most mundane parts of physics. I'm sure most ppl would disagree. I think the public perception of scientists or ppl with science degrees has to change, as a very large proportion don't need to wear labcoats in their jobs;) . I think that the wages of scientists and science lecturers is too low, and does not match the amount of work and time that ppl have invested in these careers.

I can understand both your arguments and I agree both are relevant, but to different extents. I think that red tape, messy legislation and its poor implementation can definitely increase the likelihood of corruption as well as waste money. The point you made and gcol made about how people are brought up I find more contentious, or I feel it needs further development. To illustate this I will compare 2 countries, Italy and Iceland. Both are developed countries in Europe, but one is No1 in transparency international's CPI ranking(Iceland), and the other is No 40. Can you say that the difference between these has a major cause in how children are brought up in the 2 countries? Is there a major part of the culture in Italy, that helps promote corruption(perhaps like how the mafia could be talked about as a "cultural" phenomenon in Sicily)? Could there be a link between how open people are to one another, and could this be a more complex social issue related to the amount of trust ppl can place in one another? For example the scandinavian countries that tend to dominate the transparency rankings also were at the top of rankings of trust. Could religion also have a factor to play, as it was found that in countries with a larger religious populace tend to have a lower degree of trust between ppl? I think good governance can also help lower corruption, as these countries tend to be small, and seem to be efficiently managed. Overall I think for progess, the causes and symptoms of corruption need to be distinguished. I also recognise that a lot of factors will fall into both categories.

This is something I 've been wanting to post a discussion for a while so here goes. Corruption is an endemic economic and political problem throughout the world, and can be a major roadblock in the economic deveopment of countries(especialy many in the 3rd world). My questions is what do you think can be done to combat corruption and increase transparency; and why is it some countries have lower levels of corruption than others? I have pasted a link from to the Corruption perceptions index 2005 from transparency international for your reference. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2005

how are you so sure?

Yeah, I thought they had to be able to do basic mechanics maths or physics, but my friend who's doing maths and has applied for architecture says you don't even need that! I don't know about outside the UK, but here you can get away with just doing DT(designer technology) and Art if you apply for architecture. I think architecture deals with the more artsy aspects of building design, as well as functinality and feasibillity. I think my last post on civil engineering may have been a little misleading, and I am sorry for that because it's actually quite a broad field. have a look here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering P.S do your own research!

Sometime in the future, do you think engineering and medicine experts will be added? I suppose these sections have to be more active first. Also would a pHD be required? I think most engineers do not obtain them

I just had look at wike, and found structural engineering is actually a field of civil engineering focusing on the production of complex structures. I would say any of the work regarding the construction of anything built up involves civil engineers(apart from aesthetic design, that's the architect's field). Just don't quote me on that! I'm no expert in this field. So I would presume it is more common obtain a bachelor/masters in civil engineering and specialise in structural, if that's what you want to become. I wish you good luck in whatever you decide to;)

Such a feat seems impossible to me, regardless of it being shallow.

The WTO when first established did have some rather noble aims in my opinion. The problem is that the real organisation that exists today is not one that will or can carry out those aims. It is an organisation whose decision making very much biased towards developed countries and multinational organisations. In my opinion the poorer countries need to start forming coalitions, stamping their feet and start screaming(metaphorically of course), in order to make thier voice heard. To be fair they are doing this to a certain extent already. Decisions in the organisation needs to be more democratic, and there needs to be many changes put in place to make the running of the organisation more transparent.