 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:21:10 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom>
wrote:
>Michael Zier wrote:
>> Well, as long as you know which one must be on your account... ;)
>
>I have a book on accounting software that has a page designed to be torn
>out that says
>
>"You must memorize this:
> Account Credit Debit
> Assets Decrease Increase
> Expense Decrease Increase
> Libilities Increase Decrease
> ....
That's good.
I just reverse normal logic :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:26:48 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>
>What *I* don't understand is how you do accounting for
>fractional-reserve banking. Except to the extent that you're actually
>only creating promises in return for promises.
You don't, hence the credit crunch
Boom! Boom! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:25:43 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> the "bank's" point of view. Go figure why that is useful :)
>
>Because it's the bank doing double-entry bookkeeping, not you. :-)
But when I'm doing internal accounting. The credits and debits are
looking to the Company accounts as the banker, who look to the Bank as
banker.
I only know that it works and it must be me that has a skewed view.
(Hmm! That has been mentioned to me before :)
I've never heard of accountants being made fun of :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Obviously, electrons don't just move around for the hell of it.
>>
>> Actually, at the quantum level, yeah, they do. That's why you can't
>> make abitrarily *small* transistors.
>
> True. But at the macroscopic level, they don't. Nothing does.
At the macroscopic level you can't see what electrons are doing.
Interestingly enough, when people talk about "reversible computing" that
uses no power because of the design of the gates, they usually don't
seem to realize that in practical implementations, the computation
doesn't on average progress, either. It's as likely to go forward as
backwards if you don't use power to drive it one way or the other.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> That's good.
> I just reverse normal logic :)
That only works if you're not doing the accounting yourself. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen schrieb:
> On 2 Apr 2008 07:57:14 -0500, Michael Zier <mic### [at] mirizide> wrote:
>
>> No. If there was no such thing as "synchrotron radiation"
>
> Nope! I'm not going down that road. Ultrarelativistic particles, I'll
> stick to Newton thank you very much :)
That's nothing peculiar to ultra-relativistic particles, it follows
dirctly from classical electrodynamics AFAIR. Every accelerated charge
emits electromagnetic radiation. It's just that for interesting things
to do with the radiation you need sufficient high particle energies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> Michael Zier wrote:
>> Am Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:45:08 +0100 schrieb Invisible:
>>
>>> volition anyway; it's not like it requires a *force* to drive them or
>>> anything...
>>
>> Well, strictly spoken no. Newtons first law applies to electrons too...
>
> Uhhh.... No, not really. :-) Indeed, electrons aren't even guaranteed
> to move forward in time, let alone in a smooth straight line.
>
> Oh, I guess maybe Newton's laws apply as long as there are no virtual
> exchange particles around. And the electron doesn't spontaneously turn
> into a couple of photons and back.
>
Yes, they can do some weird stuff, especially in periodic potentials (a
crystal i.e.) like having negative effective masses and such.
But in Andy's Universe(TM)* they are just point-like objects having
mass, charge, position and impulse. And the latter two might fulfill
some dx*dp>=K relation.
* introduced for explaining single aspects of complex things
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:36:49 +0200, Michael Z <zie### [at] webde>
wrote:
>That's nothing peculiar to ultra-relativistic particles, it follows
>dirctly from classical electrodynamics AFAIR. Every accelerated charge
>emits electromagnetic radiation. It's just that for interesting things
>to do with the radiation you need sufficient high particle energies.
I'm struggling getting Vista working the way I want it. What chance do
you think I have with high energy particles? :)
When it breaks I'll fix it :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out how Richard Stallman got involved in this
discussion. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2008 12:45:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>I'm just trying to figure out how Richard Stallman got involved in this
>discussion. ;-)
>
>Jim
LOL
Woosh!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
