I'm not English so pardon me for what I'll say, and correct my English if it's needed .
In my physics study we play a lot with magnetic field, electric field and field in general. When working with magnetic field, we use as you know the Ampère circuital law, and I'm stuck every time I need to choose a good closed curve. Sometime I'm lucky and it work , but sometimes not and I'm a bit lost on this. Do you have any tips on how to choose a closed curve for the theorem ? Thanks
As most of you know we are living in very inflative times without getting proper compensation.
How do we ensure people with low wages dont go under?
How do we counteract the big inflation and ensure my money isnt going to be useless?
Do we have other means to deal with this problem?
https://preview.redd.it/tjc1tswkg5k71.png?width=937&format=png&auto=webp&s=89706f6d19f5726276bb15e19c655ca2e9a7d688
Lots of sciences have their own "laws" that predict how things will work in a given set of circumstances i.e. entropy always increasing in a closed system and so on.
In all the thousands of years of military history and the study of it, I was wondering if there have been any "laws", even broad and vague ones, that predict how a country will build and utilize its armed forces.
For example, common sense and casual observation would already tell us some of the following:
- As a matter of demography, smaller countries tend to use conscription more since they have a smaller poor of volunteers. Conscription helps them utilize a greater percentage of their population to make up for the smaller numbers of people. This is especially true if surrounded by geopolitical enemies. Ex: Switzerland, Israel, Taiwan.
- As a matter of geography, continental powers focus on armies, while island/overseas powers focus on navies and air forces. This is a combination of the lesser need for ground forces (i.e. no need to worry about hostile land neighbors) and the greater reach of air forces and navies to strike across channels and oceans. Ex: Great Britain vs. France and Germany. The US vs USSR.
- Countries that are outmatched in conventional terms will try to develop an asymmetrical advantage. This often but not necessarily involves the use of a new domain of warfare or new technology. Ex: German U-Boat campaigns in both world wars to make up for inferior surface navy. Confederate usage of ironclads to take on a Union navy of mostly wooden ships. Russian and Chinese psychological/cyberwarfare against the technologically superior NATO and US forces.
- Agricultural/"settled" societies tend to focus on infantry. Pastoral/nomadic armies have more of a cavalry emphasis. Ex: China vs. the Mongols.
- Gunpowder weapons bring vast social changes tending to reduce or destroy aristocratic power. Both medieval Europe and Japan independently developed a martial class of landed nobles (knights and samurai) whose prowess was challenged by mass-produced weapons that did not require nearly as much training as a sword, spear, or bow.
This question is in two parts.
One, do you think an employer should be forced to give time off to employees who get sick in the same way they do for jury duty?
Two, do you think it should be paid leave like most other developed nations?
So, I was having a discussion with a friend of mine who is pro-choice politically but personally/morally pro life. My position is that it doesn't matter if you consider a fetus a life or not, it does not have the right to violate the autonomy of the person carrying it. It's immoral to force someone to use their body to sustain the life of another against their will, especially when there is potentially significant risk to their own health.
To bypass the "is a fetus a person or not" debate, which I believe it's not but that's irrelevant for this argument, I brought up the example of not being able to legally compel people to donate their body to save the life of another. Let's say you had a kid, the kid got sick and needed a kidney transplant, and you were the only match, the only option, or the kid would die. Even in that case, even if it posed no significant risk to your health beyond the standard risks of surgery, you can still say no. I also made the analogy if your kid got sick and the only solution was for you to be hooked up to it for 9 months at great risk to your own health, you cannot be legally forced to consent even if it means your child would die.
His response to that (one of them) was that it actually is legally required for parents to donate organs and whatnot to their kids if they're able, in order to save their lives, and if they refuse they could face criminal charges. I've never heard of that before, does anyone know if it's true? I tried searching for sources on it but couldn't find anything definitive, pretty sure it's false.
