npts2020

If I am hijacking this thread, I apologize, but since there are already threads about the LHC I didn't want to start another. I have two questions about the "beams" circulating in the LHC. Firstly, I have heard the path followed described as being a spiral, is this true even when no collisions are being done like during stability tests? Secondly, how long can the beam be held stable before substantial decay sets in (last I heard was about 10 hours) and will it ever be possible to maintain it indefinitely? Well, maybe that was three questions, but then math was never my strongest subject.

Welcome all, it is always good to have new people interested enough in science to bother signing up to participate at this site. Learning about and teaching science is what this site is all about and I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that everyone who is here for long does some of each.

Today is the 25th anniversary of the worst industrial accident ever, occurring at Bhopal, India. The medical studies done by the Indian government, completed in 1985, have never been released. What possible reason could there be for keeping them from public scrutiny?

I was given a new Asus EEE laptop today and it is pretty amazing. The whole thing is about 10 x 6 x 1 inch, weighs about a pound, and is a much better computer than my 5 year old e-Machine desktop. If my hip pocket was a just little bigger, it would fit in.

Sha31; Even the diagram you have shown has a + and - marked on the wire, isn't that an indication the presence of a dipole?

That is why I don't like to use that example but fact of the matter is they were seemingly successful which is what we were talking about more than the means. BTW it is possible the same outcome could have been achieved through other methods but anything other than the "known" history is pure speculation. I know, mine too.

My goal in high school was to retire by age 40. So far I have been retired 12 years but may have to go back to work around 70 or so, hopefully I will have learned a useful skill by then.

Scientists do this. The problem is that popular media has no interest in much of anything besides controversy. Two good examples are the "debates" over evolution and global warming, fact of the matter is that there is far more agreement in scientific circles than disagreement, yet popular media would have one believe there is a substantial percentage of scientists in disagreement.

Definitely warmer. The maple syrup season is about 7-20 days earlier than 40 years ago for sure. Until the late 80's to early 90's we never started tapping trees until after March 1st, now if you wait till then you will usually miss the first run of the year.

ecoli; The biggest problem with a so-called free market is that in the past it has simply meant freedom for "capitalists" to exploit everything from resources and environments to societies and individuals with little or no regard for the consequences of anything other than if it makes them money at a high enough rate. bascule; While I agree with the proposition that we are better off right now having done economic stimulus and bailouts, there is still a very real possibility that it will ultimately make things worse. If those financial companies had been allowed to fail (like the rules of the game said they should have) it would have caused a bigger mess for some time but IMO very real reform and change would have already taken place in the American financial sector. The main reason any of those companies were in trouble to begin with was the Ponzi scam known as derivatives. The derivative market is (still) so unregulated that nobody can even put a good number on what the total "worth" of the market is. The estimates I have seen range from $200 trillion to well over a quadrillion dollars, with most closer to the upper figure. Now what possible problems could that present? (hint; the total world's annual GDP is around $60 trillion). If the derivative market goes bust, what happened to likely 10+ years of world GDP?

Why does universal health care = forcing everyone to buy health insurance?

True, but the problem of widespread hunger was supposedly solved before the U.S. and China became involved as trading partners and before there were substantial "market reforms". Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Is that why there is so much widespread suffering in the most socialist (i.e. Netherlands, Sweden et. al.) countries on earth?

So if it is so much easier to get a conviction and execution in the state of Virginia, why not try all of the detainees in Virginia? After all, 9/11 happened there too.

Actually, most leafletting and political activity of any kind is illegal at the polling places in America. Also, until a few years ago (in the state of Pennsylvania anyway), alcohol sales were banned on election day until the polls closed. To answer your question, nobody "chooses" a primary candidate, however, many (maybe all, not sure) jurisdictions require a petition with a certain number of signatures of registered voters on it for your name to appear on the ballot. People who sign the petition are not pledging support, only agreeing that your name should appear on the ballot. The top vote getter for each party's primary becomes that party's candidate in the fall election. If someone files in both republican and democratic primaries they could conceivably win both and run unopposed in the general election. Occasionally, even a third party will run a primary but that is exceedingly rare.

I don't particularly like using China as a role model but pre-comunism there were a lot of deaths from starvation and malnutrition (possibly more than anywhere in the world at the time) during a fairly strong trade economy. What do you think today's death rate from those causes is?

JohnB; they run a "primary" for each party in the spring before the November election. Usually (but not always), the incumbent is unchallenged in his own party and the "opposing" party will have the choice of two or more candidates with the highest vote getter being the winner, even if they only receive a fraction of the total. In most states you may only vote in your own party primary but some allow any registered voter to vote in any primary. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAdditionally, I could run on either ticket (sometimes even both) whether or not I was even a member of that particular party.

Or pseudoscience could be a subforum in the speculations forum? (BTW I don't really care what the name is, it is still a good place for most of us to at least look at the ideas presented)

Tilting at the occasional windmill can be fun and good exercise.

I agree that there should be a minimum standard of living. What I disagree with is the notion of doing unfair trades is not good capitalism. In fact I would go so far as to say that many (if not in fact most) of the practices that make for a good (meaning successful) capitalist are contrary to the practices that make for a good society.

And hasn't changed a bit (he always was a little out of step with most of the republicans anyway).

Yet both are self-replicating and bound to muddle any definition of life I have ever seen. IMO if either were to be found off our planet, we would have found extraterrestrial life. I would agree, however, that the far more interesting question to contemplate has to do with more complex forms of "life".

I can say for sure that most naval vessels (including submarines) distill their own fresh water from seawater. Also, IIRC boron is used as shielding on many reactors and even for control rods on a few of them.

Just curious, when we are talking about "life" exactly what is that? Is a virus alive? What about prions?

If the whole justification for not following the Geneva Conventions for these detainees has been "they are non-state actors and therefore not entitled to any of those protections", how can trying them in a military court be justified? IMO they are criminals, pure and simple, and ought to be tried in a court just like any other murderer, extortionist, thief, money launderer, etc. If there isn't enough evidence to convict them, what makes anyone so sure they are the "worst of the worst" anyway?

Wasn't it Hitler who said something like "Make the lie big enough and tell it often enough, eventually people will believe it to be true"?