imatfaal

The Linked article has now changed to a withdrawal - albeit a very graceless one. The Article was prompted by a Eureka Alert - here and a press release here and the paper here by the CEO of the Company that put out the press release Frankly the abstract reads like many of the threads we get in speculations regarding SR and rooted in the inability of members to believe in the counter-intuitive reality described by Einstein. It relies on an aether - as we have experimental proof that we are neither moving WRTo nor stationary WRTo any aether then a theory based on this had problems

ftfy

With two octogenarians on the Court I think the NYT was reaching for well worn phrases without putting a lot of effort into the reality of the scenario

Interesting rumour regarding filling Scalia's seat; there is a bit of politicking going on as the judge has - in the past - been fulsomely endorsed Senator Grassely who has the say-so on whether the confirmations go ahead as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/white-house-vetting-jane-kelly-judge-supreme-court.html?rref=us

Not Ferguson but a continued part of the story of how a nation deals with the disproportionate number of black men killed by police officers. We hope that Alabama will prepare the case for the Grand Jury with a bit more vigour and rigour than Missouri did http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/white-officer-in-alabama-is-arrested-in-killing-of-black-man.html?rref=us

And on more recent sittings of Congress - they have steadfastly declined to move closer to the Law Enforcement Agencies' desired position. This was part of Apple's argument in the NY case; Congress could have legislated and discussed legislating but declined to do so. The AWA is a gap-filler which means that congress can give an outline idea and the courts will amend and adapt as law enforcement, technology and the country in general changes - it doesn't allow the making of new laws but it does allow newer specific ideas to be couched in the more general outlines written by Congress Congress had debated and not legislated. And in other laws Congress had deliberately removed Information Service Providers from the group of people to whom the law applied. Apple argued and the court held that this should be given weight in deciding if the action required of Apple did fall under the influence of the Act . A frightening number are ex Pro-Wrestlers etc. but they are probably out-numbered by the law school grads*. *Who probably wouldn't misremember the name like I just did

Luckily the Congress who wrote the laws that are being enforced in the courts (ie the NY case) were written by a Congress that gets little criticism. The AWA - the All Writs Act - is part of the Judicature Judiciary Act passed in 1789 by the first Session of the first Congress; this is as foundational to the USA as any Act - Sandra Day O'Connor described it as being (along with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence) one of the three documents that founded America.

From wiki

Alabama · 50 delegates 100% reporting · Trump won and has 28 delegates, Cruz has 2 Alaska · 28 delegates Cruz won and has 12 delegates, Trump has 11, Rubio has 5 Arkansas · 40 delegates 96% reporting Trump won and has 13 delegates, Cruz has 9, Rubio has 6 Georgia · 76 delegates 99% reporting · Trump won and has 36 delegates, Rubio has 11, Cruz has 14 Massachusetts · 42 delegates Trump won and has 22 delegates, Kasich has 8, Rubio has 8, Cruz has 4 Minnesota · 38 delegates 92% reporting · Rubio won and has 12 delegates, Cruz has 12, Trump has 8 Oklahoma · 43 delegates 100% reporting · Cruz won and has 14 delegates, Trump has 12, Rubio has 11 Tennessee · 58 delegates 99% reporting · Trump won and has 30 delegates, Cruz has 12, Rubio has 2 Texas · 155 delegates 99% reporting · Cruz won and has 57 delegates, Trump has 20 Vermont · 16 delegates 97% reporting · Trump won and has 6 delegates, Kasich has 6 Virginia · 49 delegates Trump won and has 17 delegates, Rubio has 16, Cruz has 8, Kasich has 5, Carson has 3

Beginning to look as if the "screw-up" of backing up / updating password might have been deliberate! (Still think it was a cock-up) Let's face it this must have seemed like a prime case for govt to run with. Precedent is a only a matter of law - facts can always be distinguished case to case; thus any case asking the same question of law should give same result and set a valid precedent - but having a stonking fact set on your side can help too. The judges know this better than anyone - but it is still hard for them not to be swayed a little

As Gen Hayden said in the interview iNow quoted - the New York State Attorney saying that he had a whole roomful of phones that needed unlocking cannot have done anything other than strengthen apples case. Whether such considerations would be taken into account (either consciously or unwittingly) here we might be able to find from judgment (havent read it ) or maybe never know [mp][/mp] The judge does consider the 9 outstanding cases Apple have and the potential for increase

[latex]2 \pi \left [ z*\sqrt{(r - z)*(r +z})*\sqrt{\frac{r^2}{(r^2 - z^2)}} \right ][/latex] from z = Sqrt(R^2-b^2) to z = Sqrt(R^2-a^2) if we sub in the first we get (sorry I have slipped to lower case r) [latex]\sqrt{\frac{r^2}{a^2}} \sqrt{(r^2-a^2)} \sqrt{((r-\sqrt(r^2-a^2)) (\sqrt({r^2-a^2)+r)})}[/latex] The third root collapses to sqrt(a^2) which cancels with the bottom of the first root giving [latex]r \cdot \sqrt{r^2-a^2}[/latex] so the difference is [latex]r \cdot \sqrt{r^2-b^2}-r \cdot \sqrt{r^2-a^2}[/latex] so we get [latex] S = 2 \pi R (\sqrt{r^2-b^2}- \sqrt{r^2-a^2} [/latex] [latex] S = 2 \pi R h [/latex]

Surface Area? Tricky - needs some thinking time LaTex fest to follow the area of a surface of rotation is [latex] S_x= 2 \pi \cdot \int^b_a y \cdot \sqrt{1+\left ( \frac{dy}{dx}\right )^2} dx [/latex] If we take the y-axis as the axis of rotation then we can say that [latex]R^2=x^2+z^2 [/latex] [latex]x= \left ( R^2-z^2\right )^{1/2}[/latex] [latex] \frac{dx}{dz}=\frac{dx}{du} \cdot \frac{du}{dz}= 1/2\left ( R^2-z^2\right )^{-1/2} \cdot (-2z)=-z\left ( R^2-z^2\right )^{-1/2}=\frac{-z}{\sqrt{R^2-z^2}} [/latex] [latex]\left (\frac{dx}{dz} \right )^2=\frac{z^2}{{R^2-z^2}}[/latex] [latex]S= 2 \pi \cdot \int^b_a \left ( R^2-z^2\right )^{1/2} \cdot \sqrt{1+\frac{z^2}{{R^2-z^2}}} \cdot dz[/latex] If you then integrate (and my latex has run out) substituting in for a and b the pythagorean result of [latex]a = sqrt(R^2- r_a^2) [/latex] ie the r_a is the radius at height a and similarly for b then it all cancels out to give [latex]S= 2 \pi R (b-a) = 2 \pi R h [/latex] where h is the height of the band. Which is a ridiculously simple result - if you set h to R (ie hemisphere) then you get the right answer of 2piR^2 which is nice. The Area only depends of the height of the band (and the radius obviously) - not on its position on the sphere

! Moderator Note O/T post and response hidden. Stick to the topic please

Still slightly disingenuous for an ex-government official to call for strong encryption in a country which has laws preventing the cross-border use, distribution, and sale of high grade encryption. And for the head of an agency who were found to be placing backdoors in the Cisco hardware without even the manufacturers knowledge. I agree wholeheartedly with what he said, and even his delivery which was refreshing and lacked the patronising manner of politicians under interview - but the position seems so far at odds with those he must have executed and promoted that there is a whiff of hypocrisy.

! Moderator Note As has been shown by various members the science of the OP falls very short of the mark and provides no proof to bolster the original poster's contention. All that remains is conspiracy - and that is not enough to warrant leaving the thread open... Thread Locked. Please do not reopen this topic unless you have substantive science to discuss and ONLY after having received permission from a staff member - If you feel you have gathered enough data then report this post to bring it to staff's attention

Thanks for posting that. In an era of sound-bites and simple take-home messages it is refreshing to hear answers that are neither. More people need to say things along the lines of "FFS - it's complicated and thus there is no simple answer I can give you in 15seconds" - and Gen Hayden's responses were like that. We do, as a society, need to accept the complexity of our situation and that decisions will not be clear; the politician who gives a cast-iron answer in 30 seconds to a matter of serious debate will almost certainly be wrong. We see this situation in miniature everyday in our own scienceforum - posters asking why we cannot encompass General Relativity in a few simple pop-science articles and one misunderstood equation; because it is complicated! And - with respect to (and due to the work of) all the working physicists out there - GR is plain simple compared to international relations, society, and the human condition.

So less of a "so long and thanks for all the fish" and more of a "so long and thanks for all the (silicon) chips"

! Moderator Note Fascinating and erudite discussion regarding the measurement and comparison of health care outcomes has been split to its own thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93769-health-care-metrics-commensurability/

! Moderator Note Indeed they can be - and I think on that note I will bring the hammer down on this thread. I believe it has run its course and I am going to lock it; any measured and relevant comments have already been made and all that remains is for (more) insults to fly - and I would prefer that not to happen

Asimov's three laws are always a good starting point https://xkcd.com/1613/

Agree with yours in the Trump thread. Although admittedly - from all the sort of people that Trump could run with Christie would be a great choice; experience of Government at a state level, even though a demagogue he is also a real politician, has a good track record of dirty tricks, and has already seized the opportunity of allying himself to a powerful politician to the chagrin of the GOP grandees (bear hug anyone?)

Nearly 700 delegates to be decided in the next three days. Of the predictions that Nate is making for SuperT - Cruz has Texas, a few close calls, and a few Trump wins. I hope he is wrong but Nate and his crew have moved the chance of Va Republican vote from being a 50% chance of Rubio win to a 75% chance of Trump. I really do not see why Trump is getting this support - and I keep hoping that the bubble bursts - but not seeing those signs yet. Perhaps the double teaming of Rubio and Cruz will work out - but I wonder if this plays to the groundlings or actually the reverse; in that Trump's constituency loves the idea that their candidate is being concertedly attacked by the old guard. Christie throwing his lot in with Trump is another thinking point - is this a bid for VP? Or is that too east coast

OK - to do this mathematically takes a bit of effort. 1. Inscribe a diameter O (ie longest chord) parallel to your other chords A,B,C,D. 2. The radius of the circle is r. 3. The perpendicular distance from O to A is a, O to B is b etc The size of Area A and D is fairly easy [latex] Area_A=r^2 \cdot \cos^{-1}\left ( \frac{a}{r}\right )- a \cdot \sqrt{r^2-a^2} [/latex] And Similarly for D - just replace a with d B and C the work is slightly more involved. For B you need to work out the area of A+B ie replace a in above equation with a+b, and then deduct the area of A. For C which includes the diameter you need to take area of Circle and deduct every thing else ie Pi.r^2 - (Areas of a + b + d)

This split was occasioned by a post by "The" "Angry" "Intellect" - is that enough of a clue?