Slashdot Mirror

WakaWaka ... could easily avoid ADDING problems:

1) ought to -- and doesn't -- provide a yellow filter or a night-time amber LED, to avoid the known health concerns about using white light at night.
These are meant to be the first white lights in areas not already lit up all night.
There's no reason to import the known problems along with them.

You can look this problem up: https://www.google.com/search?...
Good summary at: http://physics.fau.edu/observa...

2) Battery safety:

The original WakaWaka (discontinued) light used a NiMH battery, which is safe to dispose of.
The current version uses a lithium-polymer battery.
The WakaWaka page includes instructions: "How do I change the batteries" -- scrape the old battery out.

It doesn't caution that poking underneath a lithium-polymer battery -- which is a soft pouch of aluminum and plastic -- is at risk of poking a hole in the pouch and having a fire and explosion.

They should include information about how to safely discharge and dispose of these batteries along with the light.

Here for a good example: http://www.tjinguytech.com/cha...

There is no such thing as "light pollution". That's not to say that shining a floodlight through a neighbours window isn't inconsiderate, but it's not "pollution".

I don't know what your definition of pollution is, but excess outdoor lighting is ugly, it's unwanted, it can cause adverse change (everything from sleepness nights to wildlife deaths to increased levels of vandalism and other crime. And it has detrimental effects on health including a carcinogenic effect. I call it pollution, you call it light trespass or whatever you like but I suspect there is a level of excess light that you would call pollution. Can your neighbor shine floodlights into your window? How about stroboscopic flashing lights tuned to disorient and possibly trigger seizures? How about lasers? I'm not joking, given the fact that running a laser advertisement is now practically free, expect to see the night sky filled with McDonalds ads and other annoyances. If we continue to treat light pollution as a non-issue, our beautiful night sky will be replaced with pop-up ads.

The proper solution to the OP's problem is to:

1) Stop shining your lights in the direction of your neighbour 2) Use a motion-sensing light so that it at least only turns on when it needs to be

I agree with you here. This is a very good start. Ask yourself, "Is the light necessary? Is it necessary to run continuously? Would I like it if all of my neighbors had the same light? What if millions of people did exactly what you are doing, would the environmental impact be worth it? Does it provide even and useful illumination of an important area or does it provide glare and deepen shadows?"

If you do need lights, LED lights provide many advantages over older outdoor lighting technology. They are smaller than discharge tubes so can be focused better. They can be placed where you need them and they consume far less power than incandescent lights. They can be PWM dimmed, they can be cycled instantaneously (opposed to the 10-20 minute warm-up of sodium/mercury discharge lights) without significant reduction in life. Rural areas could turn off streetlights unless they detect someone (a car or a mobile phone) in the area.

Sorry, there are UF, FSU, FAU, and FIU, as well as universities of Central, North, West, and South Florida. But no FU. GP is safe wrt Floridian institutions.

Please play again.

Okay, I searched "Joseph D. Rudmin", and "Joseph Rudmin thoughts electron mass".
A google search turns up this:

A poster session, describes some of the equations, conclusions, and sources.
http://physics.fau.edu/Events/PastEvents/Gulf_Coast_2006/Talks/Rudmin/POSTER0H.PDF

The book is here:
http://www.allbookstores.com/book/9780976894728/Joseph_D_Rudmin/Thoughts_On_The_Electron_Mass.html

Other searches yield paper abstracts:
http://csma31.csm.jmu.edu/physics/mattson/csaaptvip/CSAAPT-VIP%20Fall%202006%20Talks.html
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/SES06/Event/55517

In a Wikibooks talk section, Joe writes about Kaluza's theory, which is the basis of Joe's work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Kaluza-Klein_theory

Yes, I am aware that things can be published on the web. Do a search of Rudmin Arthur Cerdic, and the first thing that comes up on Microsoft's live search is:
http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/rudmin/arthur_cerdic_c7.htm

That was published on the web. But not everything is.

What motivation would the scientific community have to want to espouse and stubbornly defend weak theory? I'd like an answer.

How about ego? It works something like this. 1) Get a Phd. 2) Join a faction 3) Defend whatever your faction believes so you can keep the spotlight and research money flowing your way, 4) ostracize and dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with you, because they are clearly misguided morons.

The classic case happened between some infallible dude named Pope Urban VIII and a bible scholar named Galileo. As it turns out, heavy objects do not fall faster than lighter objects and the earth isn't the center of our solar system. The jury is still out on whether the earth is the center of the Universe :)

Typically, before a well entrenched scientific theory dies, the people that hold those beliefs need to die as well. It's sad, but "CHANGE" and admitting to error isn't one of mankinds strengths. A good contemporary case study would be the George W. Bush presidency.

Honestly, there are real alternatives to the big bang theory. One of them is the idea that our "universe" is at the center of a black hole, which effectively places the same limits (you can't get out, and neither can light) on the boundary.

If that's the case, the "big bang" turns into the initial collapse; and the "dark energy" that drives expansion becomes the space-energy expansion inside the schwarzschild radius that is needed for conservation of energy.

I have a relative who is working on some of this...

http://absimage.aps.org/image/MWS_SES06-2006-00005 4.pdf
http://physics.fau.edu/Events/Gulf_Coast_2006/Talk s/Rudmin/POSTER0H.PDF

Here is another source for the history of electronic music.

Let me respond to my own post, since so many people are hyped up about this. I will clarify what I meant (and why I stated that I'm not familiar with wireless technology), and then let people decide.

First, in my defense: Read Griffiths' Electrodynamics, chapters 2 and/or 3. Pay special attention to the points where he states that at "low frequencies"--which for our problem means things below the THz range--a cavity surrounded by a conductor is not influenced by electrical fields from outside, but that the outside world is NOT shielded by ANY net charge within the cavity. Similarly, see http://samizdat.mines.edu/jackson/main.pdf or http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/busters_22 /answers_1.htm#Ex_9

Now, in regards to people's arguments about microwave ovens and so forth: Yes, of course they're shielded, both with the (usually unbroken) metal casing around the sides and top of the oven, and the mesh or perforated metal plate on the door. And, yes, they produce roughly the same (dipole) radiation patterns as a wireless transmitter of some sort. The fact that the shielding isn't perfect (breaks in it, sometimes not thick enough for the [very low, admittedly] frequency of the radiation emitted) leads to interference, often on wireless networks. If the shielding were better (as, for example, a nice conducting shield all around the thing, of thick enough material that skin depths don't come into play), then there would be NO escaping radiation, just as people say a Faraday cage should work. All of this I agree to. My statement that "any radiation produced by the thing inside the conductive shield will get out just fine" is WRONG, and I'm glad that people jumped on it.
My mistake was using the word ANY. Dipole radiation (such as from an antenna) or quadrupole radiation (crossed antennae, e.g.) and higher moment radiations should all be blocked from escaping from a perfect faraday cage. But monopole radiation, as from a net charge of some type inside the shield WILL escape, there's no getting around that. And I'm pretty sure (correct me on this if I'm wrong; I'm sure people will!) that most, if not all, electrical appliances which draw their power from an external source (i.e. wires, not a battery) will have, at a given moment, a net charge reflecting their states. This is IF these things are not perfectly grounded (as all appliances should be!). If this is the case, then the shield, although effective at knocking down the dipole and higher moment fields, couldn't do anything about monopole fields.

Can someone get a matched pair of walkie talkies, wrap one of them well in aluminum foil, and try this out?

yes, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging does not look for iron but he said fMRI

0.999...

I'm sure that the parent post may look insightful, but the moderators have been led astray. The poster doesn't know what he's talking about, or is a troll. Probably both.
Thank you for your comments Anonymous Coward. I have had professors and mathematicians at the University of Chicago and Notre Dame look at my mathematics before, and although I cannot claim to be a mathematician, they have certainly agreed that I know something about which I talk about.

If the value is N^N, then each additional user multiplies the value by (N+1) * ((N+1)/N)^N, which is about (N+1)*e for large N. If adding the millionth user makes a network a few million times more valuable than it was before, then you have a poor definition of value.

I'm not exactly sure when or where N^N was introducted to this line of discussion. I was refering to N! which, although related to N^{nth power}, actually increases faster than N^{nth). Perhaps I am wrong. The fact of the matter is that it increases quickly, and it accelerates as it increases.

Group theory and quantum theory are not relevant here. If the poster had enough of a mathematics background to understand either of those topics, though, then he would not have misunderstood N^N.

Well, Anonymous Coward, I would suggest reading some texts including Cisco's Internetworking Technologies Handbook and Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming. While you are at it, you may want to check out some stuff on Quantum Graph Theory.

"Graph theory combinatorics" is not a term anyone working in graph theory or combinatorics would use, and if they did, they would not elevate this trivial problem by claiming that they are relevant anyway.

Except for the 56,000 people who are recorded by google as having used those three words together in a webpage. Oh, wait, here is a conference on it, and here is a plug-in for mathematica. Oh, wait, they teach classes and hold conferences and seminars on group theory and combinatorics. (Have you ever hear of adjectives?) And more over, these are the basic mathematics used to discuss world problems, such as poverty, hunger, disease, and war.

Linear dynamics is not relevant, and probably nobody thought it was.

Except for the person who said that the problem was exponential or logarithmic.

Eigenfunctions and eigenvalues are not relevant here.

It appears to me that you don't know how to use eigenfunctions and eigenvalues to calculate quantum graphs, or to solve real world problems in quantum computing, fiber optics, network routing, group addressing, domain name spacing, etc. etc. etc. I suppose that it never occured to you that quantum graph, or a network graph, such as is described by Reed's Law could be described by a matrix or an eigenvalue, did you?

Whatever you think "modular mathematics" is, it's not relevant either.

You know what. I'm just not going to be drawn into this argument.

Much of the rest of what the parent's poster said doesn't make any sense. I think it's clear that he's full of shit.

Excellent strategy! When confronted with something you don't understand, resort to the use of vulgarities! Full of shit I am! It's a biological phenomena which results from eating food. I'm also full of water, proteins, amino acids, calcium deposits, muscle masses, and nucleic acids. But I try to be polite, and I try not to curse.

Reed's law is indeed rubbish. Where would anyone get N^N anyway? Someone could be forgiven for thinking that every possible subset of users adds some minimum value to the network, and they'd get 2^N. That would be a dubious proposition of itself. But N^N is ridiculous

Agreed! N^N is rubbish! I don't know where you got that expression. If you observe my posting, nowhere did I use the expression 'N^N'. Perhaps you were attempting to raise 'N' by 'N+1' or something. I'm not sure. I was attempting to express a concept which is typically refered to with the notation 'N!' although in my haste, I did not compose that message with that particular expression. Anyhow, I agree that N^N is rediculous. Why did you bring it up?

Sigh. Enough ranting =)

"Being a nice guy, you decide to warn the world now and give everybody a few years to prepare before revealing the discovery."

Unless a profit's involved, almost no one prepares for anything they already know, much less something they don't know.

Because he did not wish to be burned at the stake, Copernicus delayed publication of his theory until after his death.
Giordano Bruno had been burned at the stake.
Galileo had similar difficulties getting his ideas across. He waited until he was an old man but he was also tried for heresy, and fortunately he had great fame as a scientist. In the end he gave 'em the finger.

The amateur radio club of the Florida Atlantic University, K4FAU and the Boca Raton Amateur Radio Association are having their combined Field Day on the ropes course of FAU in Boca Raton.
Here is a map of the Boca Raton Campus. The ropes course is indicated with the number 74.
Everybody is welcome to visit us.

We will have a special G.O.T.A. (get on the air) station running where you can operate a radio under supervision and can see, feel and hear for your self what Amateur Radio is about.

73's de w4/pa3gvr

bug because it gave me two error messages, then popped up a printing preferences dialog. (excuse spelling, I'm tired too much school work this week.

I will not delve deeply into set-theory here. But what you remember from your classes about a class versus a set is true. A class C is defined as: C = {x | x has property P }

On the other hand, with the use of Zermelo-Fraenkels axiom number 4 from standard ZF-set-theory, the following is a completely ok way to define a set: S = {x | (x is element of T) and (x has property P) }, whenever T is a well-defined set.

In both definitions above, it is of course important that the property P is something we can express in a formal language, otherwise it is impossible to even in theory tell wether something is part of a set (note that it is ok for P to be very hard to compute, but it should at least be possible to express P in a formal language).

In the barber paradox, you have the set of all people: P. Populations are usually finite, so this set can be listed by enumeration, and is thus well-defined. Then you have the set of all people shaving themselves: S. And the set of all people not shaving themselves P\S. And we have the set B of all people shaved by the barber. All of those sets are well-defined. Now, you introduce the assumption that B=P\S. This leads to a contradiction, thus the assumption is wrong, the barber cannot possibly shave everyone who doesn't shave themselves. It is not a paradox, it is a simple proof (reductio ad absurdum), and there is no need to involve heavy set-theoretic stuff.

On the other hand, in the "interesting numbers" theorem, we have the set N of naturals. We define a subset I of "interesting" numbers. The trouble with I is that the "interesting"-property is not something we can express in a formal language. Thus I is not a well-defined set. Wrongly, we continue developing the proof under the false assumption that I is well-defined. Since our intention is to prove that I=N, it is natural to assume the opposite (not I=N), and in this case the well-ordering property of N gives us that there is a least number n in N, but not in I. Given our completely unformal definition of "interesting" above, it seems perfectly ok to say that n is "interesting". But if n is "interesting" then it must be in I. This is again a contradictory result, and thus we must conclude that not not I=N, which most people who aren't anal intuitionists, agree to mean the same thing as I=N.

Actually, he is listed in their phonebook (I searched at http://www.fau.edu/searchpage/searchpage.html ). He just doesn't have a web page, apparently.

For example, at the top of the list Dr. Piotr Blass is listed as Chief Technical Adviser from Florida Atlantic University. But he seems to be missing from the faculty. Google doesn't turn up much on the guy either. Hmmm.

I've not even had time to check the rest yet.

For example, at the top of the list Dr. Piotr Blass is listed as Chief Technical Adviser from Florida Atlantic University. But he seems to be missing from the faculty. Google doesn't turn up much on the guy either. Hmmm.

I've not even had time to check the rest yet.

Most of our enemies would see it most efficient to use prions.

These are what scientists think are responsible for mad cow disease, as well as the Kuru disease from Africa. Supposedly, if used as a biological weapon (which is years away, if even possible), they could be targetted toward specific ethnic groups and people with certain attributes. (Yes, each word in the above is a link to a resource.)

Ok, we prove that 0.999... (with an infinite number of nines) equals 1.

The problem here is that this is generally accepted as true, unless you're an extremely cantankerous constructivist by the name of Fred Richman. :-)

Actually, reading the above-linked text is guaranteed to cause 9 out of 10 mathematicians to be blinded with rage...but the guy is really a math prof.