diyAudio (
-   The Lounge (
-   -   British deregulation of physics and privatisation of "s" plane (

EC8010 9th August 2005 04:19 PM

British deregulation of physics and privatisation of "s" plane
In a shock move, the Chancellor announced today that British physics would be deregulated and the "s" plane privatised. Although the deregulation announcement had been widely expected by city analysts, the surprise "s" plane initiative is believed to have been precipitated by a need to ease the public sector borrowing requirement.

In his statement, the Chancellor said, ‘Research has revealed that physics has been operating under unconstitutional "Laws" invented on a whim by individuals to address their problem of the moment.' Passing arbitrary laws on a whim is clearly the prerogative of government, so, starting with Ohm's "Law", we intend to sweep away these outdated notions and replace them with legislation that will enhance national security.'

When queried about universal constants, the Chancellor dismissed concern by saying, ‘There are no constants - let the market decide.' A government spokesman later conceded that, 'There may be a period of instability as the value of "c" aligns with the market value, but this should be no cause for lasting concern.'

Pension funds are worried that the property market could be damaged should the free market value of "G" (gravitational "constant") fall appreciably below its present value, but property developers expressed confidence in the new system saying, ‘We don't understand this "gravity" thing, but the physicists don't either, so why should we worry about it? It's only a number.'

Although the Treasury clearly hopes that privatisation of the "s" plane will prove to be a bonanza equal to that of selling off radio spectrum to the mobile phone companies, industry figures are less confident. A leading mathematician said, ‘The market for the "s" plane is much smaller, few people understand it, and some even question if it's real.' Similarly, there is concern in the power generating industry that any future realignment of the "j" axis could render existing plant obsolete, but the Chancellor said that, ‘A changing market is natural,' and further pointed out the valuable growth opportunity for British manufacturing.

When reminded of the financial scandals immediately following banking deregulation, the Chancellor rebutted criticism by claiming that, ‘Britain has led Europe in embracing the free market economy, so the deregulation of physics is a logical move that follows on from the lessons learned in deregulating banking.' He went on to say that physics deregulation would allow British high energy physics experiments to be achieved at a fraction of international costs and would encourage inward investment. When asked whether British deregulation would undermine the proposed fusion reactor project in France, the Chancellor declined to comment.

When questioned as to whether physics was the first in a series of similar legislative moves, a junior minister said, ‘Well, it seems likely, doesn't it? I mean, take geometry, for example. Two and a half thousand years, yet Pythagoras is still only a theorem. We can pass laws much faster than that - that's what this government is about; passing laws quickly.'

Tall Shadow 22nd August 2005 06:38 PM

It would be even funnier, if there weren't really people like that in this world!

:bigeyes: :dead: ;)

Tall Shadow

EC8010 19th September 2005 09:48 PM

Glad you liked it. The world is getting dottier by the minute.

SY 19th September 2005 11:00 PM

You know that the use of j as the square root of -1 is an abomination. The proper term is i.

There should be a law.

rfbrw 20th September 2005 02:59 AM


Originally posted by SY
You know that the use of j as the square root of -1 is an abomination. The proper term is i.

There should be a law.

That would make a right mess of ohms law.

CBS240 20th September 2005 05:20 AM


Originally posted by SY
You know that the use of j as the square root of -1 is an abomination. The proper term is i.

There should be a law.

I think he is refering to the reactive load of an impeadence. However i is the proper term for SQRT -1.

SY 20th September 2005 09:47 AM


Originally posted by rfbrw

That would make a right mess of ohms law.

Yes, but that's a problem for engineers. This story involved physicists, who know that j is the proper symbol for current.

rfbrw 20th September 2005 10:50 AM


Originally posted by SY

This story involved physicists,

In the British goverment? HA! The current lot put together don't have the brains of a goldfish.

SY 20th September 2005 11:57 AM

This may soon change in Germany, eh?

I live by Heinlein's dictum that someone who can't solve a quadratic equation isn't really human, they're just a monkey that's been trained not to poop on the floor.

Jocko Homo 25th September 2005 05:05 PM

All this sarcasm, without any prodding by me. Amazing. Spot on, gents.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:57 AM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2