A) Burning any book is wrong, just wrong.
B) Sue her! The first amendment does not trump property rights. If it did, do you think there would still be any copies of any book any fanatic dislikes at any library anywhere? Besides, there was a case in the last few years that ruled that a woman could not refuse to return a library book she found objectionable (I couldn't find the article, but I think it went to the Supreme Court).
C) Yes.
I'm using the same computer for the internet, just under a different account (windows vista).
IE won't give me anything other then an error: can't open webpage message.
any more information you need?
Ah ha! Sounds like a DNS problem to me. Try running this in the command prompt:
ping google.com
ping 66.249.90.104
If the first fails, but the second works, then the problem is that your computer (on that account) can't find the address of URLs. If your connection gets the DNS server automatically, you may have to reset it's settings. Run this code and retry the ping.
ipconfig /release
ipconfig /renew
If it still doesn't work, you'll have to set the DNS server manually. I suggest using Google Public DNS (instructions included).
I agree with bradleyjx that it's probably because your fan isn't getting enough power. It sounds to me like your motherboard adjusts the speed of the fan. If the starting voltage in normal mode is too low, the fan will fail to start and your motherboard will detect preventing it from powering up. Disabling that setting or increasing the minimum voltage in the BIOS will probably solve it.
Aren't manuals great! For this motherboard/BIOS you need to change CPU VID Control while CPU VID Special Add gives you more options (see pg118). If you haven't done this before, be very cautious ramping up the voltage. Adjusting the clock speed isn't very likely to kill your CPU, but the voltage is much more dangerous. And be sure to run a stress test like OCCT, preferably for several hours to make sure it's stable.
If you want a video player, I suggest the Cowon A3. It plays nearly every audio, video, and image format; it's compatible with nearly every OS; its screen is more than twice as large as the iPhone and Zune (800x480 WVGA); costs less than the iPod touch; and you can play and record video on your TV.
Take that Apple!
@ToAzT
Try resetting IE. Go to Control Panel>Network and Internet>Internet Options and press the reset button in the Advanced tab. If that doesn't work, you'll have to get a friend to download it for you.
quote=velict;3134824]By the way, I'd like for people to stop painting her as a religious zealot. If you want to try and show that she is, prove it. Just saying that she is one doesn't really accomplish anything, other than perhaps annoy anyone who notices your lack of reasoning.[/quote]
She wants creationism taught in schools! http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
Quote from Anchorage Daily News, 9/6/06 »
The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."
Nothing good apparently. After the cut to commercials, the mikes stayed on and we get to hear what two long time conservative politicians really think. Including:
Quote from Mike Murphy »
It's not going to work.
Quote from Peggy Noonan »
It's over.
Quote from Noonan »
The most qualified? No. I would think they went for the, excuse me, political bulls**t about narratives...
Which itself seems to be true only through association.
Isn't this one already broken?
Unless I'm mistaken, quite a number of people speculate that both this and the previous conservation law are mutually wrong anyway.
While I don't know what you mean by "only through association," since the universe appears to be electrically neutral, it's probably very close to being a perfect symmetry. It is true that lepton number is not perfectly conserved (see neutrino oscillations) and there is a lot of speculation about baryon number violations (again, the Higgs, top quark condensate, and technicolor theories).
Not that I'm offering any better alternative explanations for reality, mind. But it seems that many fans of theoretical physics rail and pound their fists against every supposed luddite for questioning their conclusions, when these conclusions are often based on the shakiest ground- which, to their credit, most physicists seem to acknowledge... right up until they're questioned by any goddamned layman. To be further fair, however, there are some extremely rabid technophobes, so perhaps the hostility is understandable, if not justified.
The problem is not the skepticism, it's when people reject it because it doesn't seem to fit what they see and haven't taken the time to learn why it does. (Plus the use of charged language by laypeople doesn't help.) The world is full of things that we can't understand intuitively. But QFT and the Standard Model can explain the observed phenomenon and have accurately predicted (with slight improvements over time) the last 80 years of particle physics. And like Feynman said in his lecture, QED may be wrong, but any other theory would have to be just as strange to explain what we see in the lab.
And please, please, please watch Feynman's QED lectures. He does a far better job of explaining modern physics without math than I suspect anyone here could do.
I'm not going to say that I'm not going to watch said six hour lecture, but I am going to say that I don't have that block of time available at the moment. What I do want to know is this; does it reconcile the spontaneous creation of matter, barring the antimatter theory, with thermodynamics as we understand them?
Einstein showed in his 1905 paper on Brownian motion that a statistical application of classical molecular theory yields the classical thermodynamic laws. But because thermodynamics is essentially statistics, it breaks down when applied to systems where statistical fluctuations become significant (at the scale of a few hundred atoms/molecules or energies close to absolute zero).
Like all classical theories, it's impossible to directly apply thermodynamics to any modern physics (although thermo and E&M can be modified with minimal effort to comply with relativity).
Say, for instance- and I know this sounds crazy- the spontaneous creation of matter that isn't somehow balanced out by the simultaneous creation of equal amounts of matter?
That's one of the predictions of the Higgs, top quark condensate, and technicolor models. It's long been suspected that the matter/antimatter symmetry is broken based on astronomical observations, but no evidence on how that can happen has been found in the lab. Hopefully the LHC will give us something to work with.
If you really want to get a better understanding of modern quantum theory, read Feynman's book QED or watch the video lectures it's based on (it's about 6 hours long and 30 years old, but it's still the best explanation I've found for laymen).
TIBA, the difference between economics and physics is that physics is constantly challenging itself. There are hundreds of labs around the world testing just about every theory. In fact, QED which is the basis of all relativistic quantum theories and predicts the spontaneous creation and destruction of particles, has been tested extensively and agrees with experiments to within 10^-11. That's far more accurate than any classical theory.
And despite what you seem to think, the universe is not simple and something that can be explained without "complex formulas" no matter how often you throw Occam's razor at it.
B) Sue her! The first amendment does not trump property rights. If it did, do you think there would still be any copies of any book any fanatic dislikes at any library anywhere? Besides, there was a case in the last few years that ruled that a woman could not refuse to return a library book she found objectionable (I couldn't find the article, but I think it went to the Supreme Court).
C) Yes.
Ah ha! Sounds like a DNS problem to me. Try running this in the command prompt:If the first fails, but the second works, then the problem is that your computer (on that account) can't find the address of URLs. If your connection gets the DNS server automatically, you may have to reset it's settings. Run this code and retry the ping.If it still doesn't work, you'll have to set the DNS server manually. I suggest using Google Public DNS (instructions included).
Take that Apple!
Try resetting IE. Go to Control Panel>Network and Internet>Internet Options and press the reset button in the Advanced tab. If that doesn't work, you'll have to get a friend to download it for you.
She wants creationism taught in schools!
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
And they didn't even attempt to cover it up by calling it "intelligent design." Creationism was struck down by the supreme court in 1987.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
She believes the war in Iraq is a task "from God" and that it is "God's will" to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Nothing good apparently. After the cut to commercials, the mikes stayed on and we get to hear what two long time conservative politicians really think. Including:
The problem is not the skepticism, it's when people reject it because it doesn't seem to fit what they see and haven't taken the time to learn why it does. (Plus the use of charged language by laypeople doesn't help.) The world is full of things that we can't understand intuitively. But QFT and the Standard Model can explain the observed phenomenon and have accurately predicted (with slight improvements over time) the last 80 years of particle physics. And like Feynman said in his lecture, QED may be wrong, but any other theory would have to be just as strange to explain what we see in the lab.
And please, please, please watch Feynman's QED lectures. He does a far better job of explaining modern physics without math than I suspect anyone here could do.
Einstein showed in his 1905 paper on Brownian motion that a statistical application of classical molecular theory yields the classical thermodynamic laws. But because thermodynamics is essentially statistics, it breaks down when applied to systems where statistical fluctuations become significant (at the scale of a few hundred atoms/molecules or energies close to absolute zero).
Like all classical theories, it's impossible to directly apply thermodynamics to any modern physics (although thermo and E&M can be modified with minimal effort to comply with relativity).
That's one of the predictions of the Higgs, top quark condensate, and technicolor models. It's long been suspected that the matter/antimatter symmetry is broken based on astronomical observations, but no evidence on how that can happen has been found in the lab. Hopefully the LHC will give us something to work with.
If you really want to get a better understanding of modern quantum theory, read Feynman's book QED or watch the video lectures it's based on (it's about 6 hours long and 30 years old, but it's still the best explanation I've found for laymen).
And despite what you seem to think, the universe is not simple and something that can be explained without "complex formulas" no matter how often you throw Occam's razor at it.