Grad Student Wins Alan Alda's Flame Challenge

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grad Student Wins Alan Alda's Flame Challenge

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday June 6, 2012 @08:21AM from the wins-free-M*A*S*H-dvd-set dept.

eldavojohn writes "Scientists have long been criticized of their inability to communicate complex ideas adequately to the rest of society. Similar to his questions on PBS' Scientific American Frontiers, actor Alan Alda wrote to the journal Science with a proposition called The Flame Challenge (PDF). Contestants would have to explain a flame to an eleven-year-old kid, and the entries would be judged by thousands of children across the country. The winner of The Flame Challenge is quantum physics grad student Ben Ames, whose animated video covers concepts like pyrolysis, chemiluminescence, oxidation and incandescence boiled into a humorous video, complete with song. Now they are asking children age 10-12 to suggest the next question for the Flame Challenge. Kids out there, what would you like scientists to explain?"

161 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

1 of my favorite Antenna channels by cpu6502 · 2012-06-06 08:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Over-the-air channel 12-3 broadcasts an hour of Scientific American every day. Very well done (if a bit simplistic). They air other documentaries too. I remember when TLC used to have shows like this, but now it's PBS doing the job.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
1. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-06 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  A bit off-topic, I apologize, but this is one of my main triggers.
  I also remember when The Learning Channel had learning shows, instead of reality TV, and when the History Channel had history shows, instead of reality TV(I'm too lazy to find more), and when Animal Planet had animal shows, instead of reality TV, and so on, and so forth, I don't want to get more depressed than I currently am, so I'm not looking anymore up.
  It's a sign of the times that we must rely almost solely on PBS for actual, substantial lessons (I do love local PBS, though - they have an awesome local history show every week). It's a sign of the times that we focus more on the people that hunt alligators, or shoot historical weapons, or have family members with odd diseases, instead of the alligators, time period the guns were used, and symptoms/physiology behind the odd diseases. Why? Because we're all precious little snow-flakes, we all have interesting stories, and we all deserve our own television show.
  Thoughts?
2. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by cpu6502 · 2012-06-06 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Thoughts?
  Agree 100%. This is why I don't have cable, and when I'm traveling and see cable in my hotel, I can't find anything worth watching. Even my former favorite Syfy has devolved into a reality/gameshow channel. About the only shows I still watch are iCarly (it's funny), South Park (also funny), and the movie marathons that air on weekends.
  I actually enjoy Antenna TV more than Cable TV, because they air classic shows like Hitchcock/Dragnet, news shows like RT/France24, old movies almost 24 hours a day, and the channels don't cost me a penny. So even if they were airing crap, I'm not wasting my money (I just read a Sci-Fi magazine instead).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
3. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by eyenot · 2012-06-06 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Thoughts?
  Just that I hope you're not dissing Alan Alda!
  
  --
  "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
4. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by cpu6502 · 2012-06-06 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  P.S. I misnamed channel 12-3 as PBS. It's actually "PBS Info" one of 6 different channels PBS is now producing for antenna viewers. (The others are the main channel, a kids channel, a music/concert channel, a home/life channel, and a few others I've forgotten.)
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
5. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Rogue+Haggis+Landing · 2012-06-06 09:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Is it just me, or has the quality of the trolls at Slashdot absolutely plummeted in the last several years? I really appreciate quality trolling, but I'm afraid that it's turned into a lost art form around here.
6. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Obfuscant · 2012-06-06 09:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why? Because we're all precious little snow-flakes, we all have interesting stories, and we all deserve our own television show.
  Nope. Wrong.
  The mass marketing of specialized channels happened because there simply weren't enough specialized viewers to keep the specialization afloat. They all had to start creating new stuff to draw more eyeballs for the advertisers.
  MTV was an early victim. People got tired of watching music videos and they had to expand into whatever was edgy and new for the demographic they sought. That's why we have Real World and Road Rules and The Challenge XXI and "Pregnant at 16" and whatever other stuff they can draw people to. "Made" is homage to the fact that MTV has changed from music TV into "teen TV" but just not been honest enough to change the name.
  It is an insidious problem. AMC (American MOVIE CLASSICS) has created new TV series (Mad Men) and is now heavy into "CSI Miami". Even TVLand has fallen into the trap, airing new sitcoms they've produced.
  It was a grand and glorious vision in the 80's. 500 specialized channels so anyone could find the kind of material they wanted to watch anytime. Cable networks starting up to do the equivalent of "The Scotch Tape Store" or "Spatula City". And then finding out that fractional audiences brought fractional ad revenues.
  PBS gets away with it because they have convinced donors that they are special and it's an honor to give lots of money ( a rich people demonstration of social responsibility), they have convinced advertisers to pay for ads that are almost not ads ("this show is funded by ..."), and use a lot of BBC produced programs to draw viewers that will pay to keep the transmitters fed with electrons.
  PBS is, however, far from the "if not PBS, then who..." they were close to being many years ago. I was going to say british sitcoms are "if not PBS, then BBC America", but even BBCA has fallen into the trap and is busy showing lots of US shows --- at least any US show that has Gordon Ramsay as the host.
7. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You forgot ghosts and aliens.
  If I see that orange guy that is just abosolutely positive that aliens are milking our prostates to create alien-human hybrid living spacecraft to deliver pyramid materials to far-off galaxies... I'm gunna throw my TV out the window. The best part is that H presents him like an expert. Whatever the fuck an "expert" in active alien conspiracies is, I'll never know.
  As for all the fucking retarded ghost shows, they just repeat the same nonsense, over and over.
  "That has to be a ghost."
  "No it doesn't."
  "I dunno, I'm pretty sure that's a ghost."
  "Nope."
  "Look here, there was a sound."
  "You're in a 200 year old building, jackass."
  "Yeah but that's not the sound a building makes."
  "God, please shut up."
  "We need to do an emergency exorcism. C'mon everybody..."
  "Next time, on ghost show, the guys we pay to make this show are sure they think they might have recorded yet another random sound that could be evidence of a potential ghost. Maybe."
  What kind of asshole tunes in, week after week, for that?
8. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Megane · 2012-06-06 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  I remember when cable TV was actually worth paying money for, Then over 10 years ago I gave up the $35+/month habit. Now the only reason I can see for paying money for cable TV is if you're a sports fan, as we've gradually let sports move onto cable TV. (Substitute "satellite TV" for "cable TV" as you wish, it's almost the same.)
  I also remember back in the '80s when cable TV got you better picture quality on local channels. (and when MTV actually had music videos)
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
9. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Hatta · 2012-06-06 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  I remember when TLC used to have shows like this, but now it's PBS doing the job.
  Thank you socialism.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
10. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Megane · 2012-06-06 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Damn. I get two PBS channels on my antenna, and both run Create (the home/life), one (near Fort Hood) runs Pentagon Channel, and the other (in Austin) runs their own extra channel (which usually has good stuff). At least neither runs PBS Kids; I'd probably remove that one from my channel list.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
11. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Quirkz · 2012-06-06 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Insightful. I'd feel gloomy about the failure of specialized channels, except I think most of us will eventually get by well enough with streaming services like Netflix and the like, where you can grab what you like from a pool of everything. The only concern there is that there's enough money, somewhere, to fund the right variety of shows in the first place so they're available to watch.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
12. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Quirkz · 2012-06-06 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  I watched a season of Ghost Hunters specifically to laugh at the silly acting every time there was a weird noise. I spent a lot of time thinking about doing a parody of their style, but with really obvious sources for the "strange activity."
  
  More recently I've been a little impressed with a show that goes to a lot of trouble trying to debunk and/or recreate "supernatural" pictures and videos. They're still a little accepting of the idea that it *might* be a ghost or bigfoot or whatever for my tastes, but I like that they at least start out with the idea there's a rational explanation. Can't remember the name of the show at the moment, though.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
13. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by moderatorrater · 2012-06-06 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  now it's PBS doing the job
  Nova's been on the air since 1974. Either you're really old or you aren't giving PBS enough credit for always having good science shows.
14. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by petsounds · 2012-06-06 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have evidence for "people got tired of music videos", or is that just a guess? Because I would say Viacom buying MTV in '85 was its death knell, although it took Viacom a few years to really figure out what to put on MTV.
  Not everyone non-music video show on MTV was bad though. Look at Liquid Television – they showed fairly avant garde shows like Aeon Flux.
  And according to Wikipedia, MTV dropped the tagline "Music Television" in 2010. So that last lip service to music has finally been expunged.
15. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by hairyfeet · 2012-06-06 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah PBS and Nova rock. I have an engineering buddy that saves me a copy of good Nova and PBS documentaries and they never fail to be engaging. I recently watched "Absolute Zero" which went from the first experiments to understand what cold was all the way up to making the first Bose Einstein Condensate and it was really REALLY good. They give you a good starting out point if you wish to learn more without piling on so much technobabble that those without a degree in the field they are talking about can't keep up, just really good stuff.
  Sadly we are up to our asses in reality TV because throwing some trashy people in a room and filming them acting like asses is dirt cheap. A couple of cameras, some trashy folks with huge egos, cheap as dirt and just as common. I tried to watch one of those things just to see WTF a Snooki was and i felt like my IQ was dropping by the second, it was like a retard ray attacking my brain.
  Now frankly I watch more Youtube and Hulu than anything, not because i'm snobby but because between all the retarded TV and even more retarded commercials I feel like watching most TV is like one long episode of "Ow my balls!" whereas at least Hulu has shows like Night Gallery and Youtube has excellent documentaries like Battle Stations,20th Century Battlefields and lectures by engaging thinkers like Neil Degrasse Tyson. Commercial TV has just gotten too painful for me to watch, even the non reality TV seems so predictable and formulaic its not even interesting to me.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
16. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Obfuscant · 2012-06-06 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have evidence for "people got tired of music videos", or is that just a guess? Because I would say Viacom buying MTV in '85 was its death knell, although it took Viacom a few years to really figure out what to put on MTV.
  MTV was doing ok with music videos as its niche format for many years. If MTV had kept doing well, Viacom would have had no decisions to make, and no reason to change formats. The change wasn't trying to get away from a successful channel, it was trying to fix a broken one. Part of the problem was that VH1 stole the "hits", and CMT stole country. One success spawned multiple copies, and thence multiple failures.
  
  Not everyone non-music video show on MTV was bad though. Look at Liquid Television â"
  
  I didn't say that they were bad, they were just not music television. Real World dealt with some (a few, at least) (ok, one maybe) serious social issue(s) of the time, even though it was mostly adolescent hijinks and drunken arguments. And sex. One Pedro to a hundred sex. And poor Paula, who was both a "social issue" and sex in one package. Some of the programs were fine. I loved Ken Olber's basement game show, for example. Many more are/were "reality" nightmares, successful for the same reason every reality show is: "my life doesn't suck as bad as those people on TV so I must be ok." That and "my life sucks just like those people on TV so I can relate". And maybe "those people have lives so much better than I do, maybe I can learn from them..."
  You can still see some music videos -- at 6AM or so. But none of the mainstream programming is Music anymore. The 24 hour video concept wore out and advertisers noticed.
  I forgot to mention even the simple concepts have tried to become generic TV. The Weather Channel, which for a long time was content to be The Weather Channel and provide weather information in a simple fast easy format. And even the program guide now carries the movies and programs that it used to be the listings for.
17. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Fnord666 · 2012-06-06 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Is it just me, or has the quality of the trolls at Slashdot absolutely plummeted in the last several years? I really appreciate quality trolling, but I'm afraid that it's turned into a lost art form around here.
  Nah, it's just summer and the kiddies are out of school during the day. Data analysis of moderations/UID/day of the week/date would probably turn up some really interesting stuff.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
18. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by citizenr · 2012-06-06 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot ghosts and aliens.
  If I see that orange guy
  http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ancient-aliens-i-dont-know-therefore-aliens.jpg
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
19. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by osu-neko · 2012-06-06 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  I remember when cable TV was actually worth paying money for...
  Wow, it must have been really cheap in your area when it first came out.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
20. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by xstonedogx · 2012-06-06 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Most of those shows have really obvious sources for the "strange activity" already. If I see one more freaking blob of out-of-focus dust (i.e. "an orb") I'm going to lose it. I really can't believe the guys on the show actually believe. It's so bad.
  I think you're thinking of Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files.
  I'd absolutely love to believe in all this hokum, but I simply can't. Still, I love Ancient Aliens. It's just good fun to me.
21. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by honestmonkey · 2012-06-06 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you and like your comments, but people are missing an important event that explains why we have so many "reality" TV shows, and that is the 2007-2008 writer's strike. With no new scripts for their TV shows for 14 weeks, TV execs needed to replace the shows with something. It turned out that pointing a camera at a bunch of jerks and then slapping a title on it was cheap, easy, and didn't require an expensive writer. Just people that in many cases were happy to be stupid on TV for free if they got their "15 minutes of fame". That's why we have "Dancing with the Czars" and crap like that, just need a camera man, man.
  
  --
  Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
22. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't hurt that reality tv is very cheap to make and that the demographic that watches are very easy to sell to. I don't know if it has changed but CBS used to have a lot of highly ranked shows but not much ad revenue to show for it. The problem was their shows attracted a lot of older viewers that aren't as likely to switch brands and buy something just because it is new.
23. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  Is it just me, or has the quality of the trolls at Slashdot absolutely plummeted in the last several years? I really appreciate quality trolling, but I'm afraid that it's turned into a lost art form around here.
  I think the Muslim kids would like explosive-making explained
24. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by giorgist · 2012-06-06 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  I can see it now ... from MTV to TTV as in Teen TV. Then people will read that as Titty TV and that is what it will become
25. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by CubicleView · 2012-06-06 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just you, I don't know if it's early onset old age or what but I do feel trolls were better back in my day. I commented as much recently http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2879609&cid=40142035
26. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by cornjones · 2012-06-07 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  I would add two more points.
  I like the point about the writers strike but I would tkae it further. once the tv execs realized that people would watch unscripted tv, they realized they didn't need to pay (as many) script writers for a popular product. The studios like it b/c it is cheaper and the public likes it b/c it is 'easier' to watch people bumble about ( and not have to think about strenuous things like 'plot'.)
  I think the point about viacom changing mtv b/c it wasn't successful isn't entirely true. (I don't have the financials to prove this so let me just assert a feeling). MTV (and several of these niche channels) could probably make a bit of money, but the amount they were making wasn't expanding (quickly enough). As a public company, if you can't show growth, you die so just making money isn't enough. This drives business that are mildly successful (continually bringing in, say, expenses + 5%) to drastic changes in the name of growth. stability is just not valued. I see this as a major problem across sectors and I think the move from music to reality tv from mtv was likely done in the name of growth, rather than to avoid losses.
27. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  now if only there were a medium that truly could provide specialized content, without the overhead costs of having to run a channel either 24/7 or only during certain hours. a medium where you could have any content you want, any time of day....in fact, its so open, even the viewers can create their own content. we can have content so specialized that only 5 or 6 people ever view it regularly...
  if only.....
  I vote we destroy the MPAA before they destroy the internet.
28. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by cpu6502 · 2012-06-07 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm disappointed the Sci-Fi is no longer sci-fi/fantasy. I'm disappointed that History Channel no longer shows history, but instead shows the present. Well that's about it. I didn't watch much else.
  BTW music television exists on Antenna television. It's called CoolTV and they play blocks like "70s rock" or "cool 80s" and then modern music the rest of the time.
  And yes I watch Ghost Hunters. On hulu. I fast-forward to the "reveal" because that's where all the "action" happens. If they ever find something that's where it will occur.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
29. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by cpu6502 · 2012-06-07 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  It used to be just $25 a month.
  And it was worthwhile because watching shows I'd never seen before (Time Tunnel, Ufo, Dark Shadows, Quantum Leap) was cheaper via cable then buying the season-set on VHS (around $1000).
  Today it's the exact opposite. Cable costs too much (~70) and season sets on DVD or Hulu are cheap to rent.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
30. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Stele · 2012-06-07 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  It was a grand and glorious vision in the 80's. 500 specialized channels so anyone could find the kind of material they wanted to watch anytime. Cable networks starting up to do the equivalent of "The Scotch Tape Store" or "Spatula City".
  Yes but where else are you going to go to get all your name-brand spatulas at half the retail price?
  Last week I bought ten spatulas, and I got one more for just a penny!
31. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Stele · 2012-06-07 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that already called Playboy?
32. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Asmodae · 2012-06-07 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  MTV (and several of these niche channels) could probably make a bit of money, but the amount they were making wasn't expanding (quickly enough). As a public company, if you can't show growth, you die so just making money isn't enough. This drives business that are mildly successful (continually bringing in, say, expenses + 5%) to drastic changes in the name of growth. stability is just not valued. I see this as a major problem across sectors and I think the move from music to reality tv from mtv was likely done in the name of growth, rather than to avoid losses.
  This can't be said loudly enough. There are loads of great niche products that try to expand out of their niche in the name of 'moar moneys!'. Tons of niche games, shows, electronics, etc. are doing fine. They're making money, they are profitable. But as the parent says, stability has no value. GROWTH has become the byword and if you can't show growth, then you get the axe (for any company, but it's orders of magnitude worse at publicly traded companies). This inevitably leads to niche products/services abandoning their niche and their core fans and supporters pursuing the wider market.
  Frequently in games this is referred to as 'dumbing down', and sometimes it works. Sometimes a product grows outside it's core and gains lots of new rabid fans even if loosing their old ones (say like Skyrim). But most times it fails miserably (Dragon Age 2).
  It is a fine line really, but in the tv business especially, everything is converging onto a few stupid formats of max profit margin. Meanwhile the niche markets are still out there, abandoned, looking for products that actually cater to them. And Cable companies wonders why people are abandoning them in droves for on-demand streaming services.
33. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Ed_Pinkley · 2012-06-07 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  500 specialized channels so anyone could find the kind of material they wanted to watch anytime.
  Remindes me of Wierd Al's Cable TV
  
  I got celebrity hockey
  The Racketball Channel too
  
  --
  "Long time listener, first time caller."
34. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by kmoser · 2012-06-07 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  The present is simply future history.
35. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by mattack2 · 2012-06-07 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  The History Channel just aired "The Hatfields & The McCoys", and got the highest ratings ever for a cable channel.
36. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by mattack2 · 2012-06-07 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have evidence for "people got tired of music videos", or is that just a guess?
  It wasn't that people got tired of them, it was that ratings for non-videos shows got higher ratings than videos.
  This is the book I remember reading about MTV, that covered the issue. http://www.amazon.com/Mtv-Making-Revolution-Tom-McGrath/dp/1561387037
37. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by mattack2 · 2012-06-07 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  I like Nova and a lot of other PBS documentaries, AND a bunch of the reality shows (not "Jersey Shore"). It's possible to like and enjoy both.
38. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-07 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't that make you want to throw up?
39. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by cyberstealth1024 · 2012-06-07 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  have fun doing the data mining on that
40. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by mattack2 · 2012-06-07 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  No.. It's a good thing, since it was mostly historically accurate (the one issue I heard about is that the one judge in the movie was really a composite of two different judges).
  It was a very entertaining miniseries.
41. Re:1 of my favorite Antenna channels by Megane · 2012-06-08 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, it was just that antenna TV was so crappy, in terms of signal quality. (Cue jokes about "the brightness knob doesn't work, it's still stupid!") Now the digital picture is great if you're 10-60 miles from the transmitter.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Fucking magnets how do they work? by h4rr4r · 2012-06-06 08:27 · Score: 5, Funny

âoeFUCKING MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
1. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by v1 · 2012-06-06 08:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  FUCKING MAGNETS, HOW DO THEY WORK?
  yes, that would be an attractive video to watch!
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
2. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  There's plenty of videos on youtube of magnets banging together....
3. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by SplashMyBandit · 2012-06-06 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Easy. The electric field of a moving charge when you are not in the rest frame of the charge results in .... a magnetic field. This is why electric fields and magnetic fields are related (although having an inkling about Special Relativity helps too). No video or song for you (believe me, you wouldn't like to hear me sing - although I can dance :) ).
4. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by SplashMyBandit · 2012-06-06 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  ... although 'electric field' is an abstract concept. We'd also have to go into particle exchange to explain it. Down the rabbit hole we'd go.
5. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by spire3661 · 2012-06-06 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Your wit repulses me.
  
  --
  Good-bye
6. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by MozeeToby · 2012-06-06 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Some are attracted, some are repulsed. It's like slashdot's gone bipolar.
7. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:55 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  If you really want to know how magnets work, don't look to the "Standard Model" for answers, because there isn't an answer in the standard model. Some doofus will probably conjure up some particle to fit a dream he had about magnetism and everyone else will believe it like it is some new religion. To me the standard model is a religion in itself.
  I'm not going to attempt at explaining the standard model or how this is different. Suffice to say this has nothing to do with the standard model and will be modded down so far because none of this is in any college handbook. And like a 100 times before, if it isn't in a college hand book that someone here has read before, then it is all wrong.
  If you really want to know, read on anyway.
  All protons have Lagrange points inside of them. The more spheres(protons) fused inside of each other, the more Lagrange points the atom will have. These Lagrange points attract protons as well as electrons. When a proton is attracted to this Lagrange point, it is gravity. Electrons are also attracted to these Lagrange points too but are so small as not to affect gravity. Although if you load up the proton with enough electrons you can over come gravity.
  But, the more electrons that are attracted to the Lagrange points inside the proton, the more the Lagrange point gets filled and other electrons start to orbit the Lagrange point. The electrons that are orbiting the Lagrange point at farther and farther points, the easier it is to fling them off to other Lagrange points inside the same proton or to other protons.
  If a Lagrange point of a proton is more than half way from the exact center to the outer edge, the more likely the electron will be attracted to the proton outer edge itself instead of the Lagrange point. The Lagrange point at the half way point in between the outer edge and the exact center, the proton will become magnetic. The tipping point where the pull of the electrons will over come the force of gravity. Moving away from the half way point closer to the exact center makes it more conductive than magnetic.
  That is why Iron is a good conductor and magnetic and copper is just a good conductor but not magnetic.
  But closer and closer the Lagrange point gets to the dead center, the more it becomes a super conductor.
  Helium is not a conductor of electricity at room temperature. Helium has two Lagrange points near the two outer edges. As Helium cools and the proton shrinks, that Lagrange point moves closer and closer to the center. At some certain temperature, the Lagrange points gets to half way in between the outer edge and the exact center. It then becomes a conductor of electricity. As it get colder and colder and shrinks to near absolute zero, the two Lagrange points merge at the center of the proton and it becomes a superconductor as it is as easy to push an electron into the proton as it is to fling out out of the center and on to another helium proton. ie.. no resistance to the proton as the electron passes through. Resistance in passing through is usually given up to the proton as the speed of the electron passing through causes the speed of the rotation of the proton to speed up. That causes the proton to expand, spin faster and we usually measure that as heat. It takes lots and lots of electrons for that to happen, not just one electron.
  So magnetism is the point where the Lagrange points of electrons are sufficient enough to gather enough electrons to over come the force of gravity. A conductor is the point where Lagrange points of electrons can fly off of the Lagrange points to another proton easier than getting stuck to the Lagrange point caused by the rotating proton( or commonly called gravity). The closer to the center of the proton, the less resistance on passing through, to the point of no resistance and the proton becoming a superconductor.
8. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Ooo, strong with the force are they. Hew-hehehe. Much likeness to your father do they have. Yhwahahaher... *cough* *chough* To old am I to be speaking of such things. Continue with your training, young Skywalker.
  -Yoda, explaining magnetism
9. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by FrootLoops · 2012-06-06 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  How do they work? Like this.
  Why do they work? Fuck if I know. At least Richard Feynman agreed with me.
10. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by iluvcapra · 2012-06-06 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  As everybody knows, electric fields are the wake of the speedboats driven by the little tiny martians that live in copper wire, as they speed toward the cute lady martians who live on the anode of the battery.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
11. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by TapeCutter · 2012-06-06 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a video about it from a legendary science communicator,who IIRC had something to do with giving us our modern definition of a 'field'. As suggested in the short video, magnetisim and electricity are related and you can "go a little deeper" as you have done. However neither Feynman or yourself can answer the question (although Feynman was smart enough to know he couldn't).
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
12. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by paulmac84 · 2012-06-06 12:09 · Score: 2
  
  Definitely going to want a citation for that. Failing a citation, a copy of your prescription will do.
  
  --
  One of the universal rules of happiness is always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual
13. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by SplashMyBandit · 2012-06-06 17:47 · Score: 1
  Great video. With regard to your indirect snipe that Feynman was smart enough to know that he couldn't (and presumably I'm too dumb to know this) then you may have missed the points of the video you posted, which are:
  
  * Once you start asking "why?" you will rapidly end up with even more questions
  * At some point the person explaining a question is likely to pass the bounds of knowledge of the person asking the question. This is why he didn't give an answer. This did not mean he didn't know the answer.
  
  * The answer he did know (since he discovered the theory for it) is that in the case of the electromagnetic field virtual photon pairs are exchanged. In a frame of reference other than that of the charges then this appears to us a 'magnetic field' (which has a different guise to the effects we consider eminating from an 'electric field' - although they are actually the smae thing [it is just our perceived labels for the different effects that is confusing].
  * At some point you reach a boundary where there is no more "why?", there is just "it is" - he mentioned the fundamental electromagnetic force as this, while realising that it is charge and virtual photon exchange that is actually more fundamental. There is no known level below this. Once you understand how these things work then you understand magnets to the best level that *anyone* understand them (although few people know the mathematics to perform the calculations - but while *mathematics* is helpful it is actually not required to understand the *physics* of the theoretical model)
  So, if you meant to insult me, a big yawn back at ya. Just like Feynman (who was vastly smarter than I), I gave an answer to the level that I estimated a Slashdotter could handle (since I have a PhD in Physics, although not particle physics, this is clearly not the same level as my understanding/computational ability). My statement still stands though, magnitism arises from the observation of moving charge (which we consider fundamental) in a frame that is not the rest frame of the charge. The details about virtual photon exchange, the Uncertaintly Principle etc did not need to be brought out unless another "why?" was forthcoming (indicating the listener might be able to cope with the answer). There are answers to my questions that I don't understand, so the limiting of my response was not out of arrogance, it was the humilty of my own limitations and trying to be considerate of the limitations of others why I gave a limited answer (not because I didn't know to the limit of the fudamentals of current science).
14. Re:Fucking magnets how do they work? by rilian4 · 2012-06-07 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah..but it would be utterly polarizing... ;-P
  
  --
  
  ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
How Women's Minds Work by fallen1 · 2012-06-06 08:30 · Score: 3, Funny

I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind how women's minds work. Seriously. I'm sure most guys out there have experienced the "I think I've finally figured out most of what makes her tick. Now I just need to.. what the fuck?! She just did the opposite of what I.. never mind, I give up."
Oh, wait, this is /. I'm talking about... ;-)

--
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
1. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  How women's minds work:
  Give me this.
  Buy me that.
2. Re:How Women's Minds Work by cpu6502 · 2012-06-06 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  Bought this 20 years ago, and it helped immensely (though it's only the beginning of understanding; every martian/venusian is different) :
  http://www.amazon.com/Men-Mars-Women-Venus-Understanding/dp/0060574216
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
3. Re:How Women's Minds Work by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-06-06 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  So how's that divorce settlement going?
4. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  See Mark Gungor - Men's Brain Women's Brain
5. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  1. If she is tired, or sick, she wants pampered.
  2. If she is is stressed, she wants assistance
  3. If she is chatty, she just wants someone to listen to her
  4. If she's feeling sexy or lonely, she wants to be gushed over.
  5. If she's crying, sometimes it's best to either hold her, or leave her alone till she's done crying. Sometimes, she doesn't even know why she's crying. In those cases, just leave her alone till she's done.
  There. That pretty much covers it. You are welcome.
6. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  Regarding these women you are referring to, do you mean my Mom? You know, the person who lives upstairs, brings food down to me, and says I need to take a bath and spend some time outside - something like that?
7. Re:How Women's Minds Work by lpp · 2012-06-06 09:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I'm just guessing here, but probably:
  Give me this.
  Buy me that.
8. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  1. If she is tired, or sick, she wants pampered.
  You mean either "pampering" or "to be pampered".
  You can't use past participles that way in English.
9. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Most non-boring men are complicated too. It just seems that some men whine a lot more about it.
  So please get over this overused trope. I don't come here to have my gender made fun of. It's getting pretty tiring getting hit with this ridiculousness in the middle of reading actual decent comments.
10. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  And she doesn't like being nit picked to death either....esp since she has to pick up your stinking dirty socks.
11. Re:How Women's Minds Work by dgatwood · 2012-06-06 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe she wants someone wearing Pampers. If saying "She wants George Clooney" is correct, then so is "She wants Pampered".
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
12. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Megane · 2012-06-06 09:38 · Score: 2
  
  I think you missed a few:
  6. If he is tired, or sick, she wants to be pampered.
  7. If he is is stressed, she wants assistance
  8. If he is trying to get some actual work done, she just wants someone to listen to her
  9. If he is feeling tired or lonely, she wants to be gushed over.
  10. If he is crying over the monthly bills, she wants to go shopping. Sometimes, she doesn't even know why she wants to go shopping. In those cases, just leave her alone till she's done.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
13. Re:How Women's Minds Work by JWSmythe · 2012-06-06 09:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It sounds like the whole cycle. Dating, marriage, and divorce.
  I worked with a guy once, who said that everything a woman said could be summarized to "I want ..." and "I need ...". The second could still be summarized as "I want ..."
  I waited years to prove him wrong. I couldn't. When he was around, and a woman was talking, I was always waiting to be able to say "See, she didn't say want or need!" It wasn't necessarily in the first few seconds of talking, but those were just the introduction to "I want..." or "I need..." In the end, it usually involves money. Sometimes directly like "I need $20". Sometimes indirectly "Wouldn't it be nice if we had a new car?" (meaning, "I want a new car.")
  There are exceptions to this. She is my girlfriend. :) There may be others out there, but you'll be hard pressed to find one.
  Those who deny it, are ignoring what's really being said.
  And now that you've read this, you'll see how often it does occur.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
14. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  That's what you get for picking a pretty girl, and not a geeky one.
15. Re:How Women's Minds Work by The+Good+Reverend · 2012-06-06 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Men are complicated in much less strange ways. It's not like each and every one of us doesn't deal with both men and women in a variety of relationships all the time.
16. Re:How Women's Minds Work by FrootLoops · 2012-06-06 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  You know, there are a lot of downsides to being gay and not a lot of upsides, but at least I've never seen a book titled Bears are from Mars, twinks are from Venus.
17. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  ...and don't ask questions.
  (Captcha was "trouble")
18. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  No. That's what he got for picking a girl and not a woman. Seriously, there are so absolutely fantastic women out there (of all shapes, sizes, and looks). Just be choosy and work on yourself so you're a catch too, and don't be afraid to be alone (although if you are doing it right, there will always be female companions who aren't girlfriend material but will play some of the parts...)
19. Re:How Women's Minds Work by xstonedogx · 2012-06-06 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  The ways are "much less strange" because you are a man. Believe it or not, if you are a complicated man you are just as strange a creature to a woman as a complicated woman is to you.
  Unlike the original poster, when I think I have a woman figured out and she does the opposite of what I think she is going to do, I don't say "I give up" I say "Wonderful!" Who wants a boring, predictable lover? Maybe boring, predictable people, but not me.
20. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Velex · 2012-06-06 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  The way women's minds work is very simple. You start with the way a man's mind works, and then you take away reason and accountability. Perhaps whoever originally wrote that meant it as some kind representation of misogyny only to be conquered when the character got laid, thus proving that the root of all misogyny is sexual frustration.
  On the other hand, it does work marvelously well. The other trick is when she inevitably gets her feelings hurt (like when you suggest one interpretation of the client's wishes and then she sends you something completely different to actually implement and then you turn out to be right and she wrong and on the receiving end of some less than nice words from the client), don't worry about it. You're dealing with someone with the mentality of a 6-year old.
  Of course, there's no inherent biological reason it has to be that way. I've got a female-model brain, but it seems to be the other body parts that usually go with that one. Women get their boobs, then all of a sudden they can get 90% of men to do anything for them. Reason and accountability are things that are hard like math (you may not realize it, but most females are proud they don't know math) that are quite unnecessary. And, well, the other 10% who took that gender equality stuff seriously and expect quality work from their female colleagues, well, they're just gay so they don't matter.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
21. Re:How Women's Minds Work by alexgieg · 2012-06-06 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind how women's minds work.
  This will provide some useful insights: Láadan.
  
  --
  Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
22. Re:How Women's Minds Work by ghostdoc · 2012-06-06 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but if you think you have a man figured out and then find you haven't, he's not mad at you for that. Most men will take it as a welcome opportunity to explain how rational we are (and talk about ourselves for a bit).
  If you're in a serious relationship with a woman and she realises that you don't understand something about her, then that's apparently cause for a fight/crying.
  Somehow she can be as irrational as she likes and if you don't understand her that's because you don't love her enough.
  Asking her to explain either the original behaviour or why she thinks this is also cause for a fight/tears.
  I'm not criticising women, I'm just illustrating why this is tricky for men sometimes.
  
  --
  Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
23. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's because understanding is part of acceptance, and we can't have that.
24. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Andtalath · 2012-06-06 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the main thing isn't that men and women work that differently.
  Granted, certain things differ somewhat.
  However, the main thing is that when you live with someone, you REALLY get to know them.
  Very few people have the same set of priorities as you do, also, they don't function the same mentally, physically or socially.
  Meaning, as you understand more and more about just how different the one you are living with is from you, you get more and more perplexed.
  This problem isn't lessened for gay people.
  When you talk to buddies over beer, mostly they listen and say "hear hear!" to anything you say.
  Meaning, they hear an annoying thing without context and sympathize that it's been shitty to you, not really caring about the difference between "I stubbed my toe!" or "I got fired!" or "My wife whines all fucking day!".
25. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 21:49 · Score: 0
  
  Ditch all of your friends
  Shut up
  Listen
  Remember every minute detail of everything she has ever said and everything good that she has ever accomplished
  You are never right
  She is always right
  I'm sorry
  I love you
26. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Google Roissy Hartiste; He is the leading expert in that field; He is also the leading expert in the application of that knowledge in ways you're interested in.
27. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  That reminds me of a great joke.
  
  What do you tell a girl with two black eyes?
  Nothing. You already told her twice.
  
  Anyways, you belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Now shut up and go make me a sandwich, bitch.
28. Re:How Women's Minds Work by dwye · 2012-06-07 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'd enjoy hearing the explanation behind how women's minds work.
  Wrong age group for that. Just going into puberty, I doubt that they can figure out how their OWN minds work, let alone someone who thinks differently who also cannot figure out how her won mind (or body) is working from moment to moment.
29. Re:How Women's Minds Work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Shoes!
Why is the sky blue? by magic+maverick+ · 2012-06-06 08:32 · Score: 1, Interesting

Where do babies come from?
How can I make this other person like me?
And why can't you explain flame without using a stupid video, in a manner that can be understood by those with crappy Internet connections and/or those with poor or non-existent eye sight? Another question, who the hell still uses frames in this day and age?
The whole concept is pretty damn cool though. Explaining science to kids. Perhaps explain evolution next. If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand...
What I am interested in knowing, is did the children actually understand the explanation, or did they just pick the one that they understood the most of? Were they tested afterwards?

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
1. Re:Why is the sky blue? by c0lo · 2012-06-06 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  And why blue is blue?
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:Why is the sky blue? by kenrblan · 2012-06-06 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps explain evolution next. If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand...
  The primary difference here is that a small child might want to understand, while the creationist prefers to ignore logical explanations. Most creationists would be capable of learning and understanding if the desire were present.
  I absolutely love the concept of these challenges to develop really good explanations of science related concepts. Children generally want to know why things are they way they are. Giving them clear lessons to their questions will only result in improved scientific literacy and interest. Very few things are as discouraging as an incorrect or poorly constructed explanation. For instance, my 5th grade science teacher (also a sports coach) totally screwed up the explanation of how the phases of the moon work, basically confusing them with eclipses. I'm sure that damaged several of my classmates.
  
  --
  Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
3. Re:Why is the sky blue? by Grishnakh · 2012-06-06 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand...
  Doubtful. But at least if you can make the creationists' kids understand, things will be better in 30 years. Of course, by then, the country may well have collapsed because of the idiocy of the creationists, but at least their kids and grandkids might be able to pick up the pieces and build something better.
4. Re:Why is the sky blue? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Hi, I'm a mockery of you. See, I'm mocking you. Mock!
  I do this because I don't have a valid opinion and I feel threatened by a world that's waking up to the tyranny of my devices.
  Mock! Neener!
5. Re:Why is the sky blue? by jedidiah · 2012-06-06 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  He's not really mocking creationists.
  For that you need a publication from the Family Research Council.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
6. Re:Why is the sky blue? by countach · 2012-06-06 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Erk. Creationists understand, they just don't agree.
7. Re:Why is the sky blue? by spire3661 · 2012-06-06 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  You have no hope of making a Creationist understand, for it is not truth they seek, but comfort.
  
  --
  Good-bye
8. Re:Why is the sky blue? by dylan_- · 2012-06-06 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  The sky is blue because air is blue and the sunlight is shining through the air.
  
  Where do babies come from?
  When a man and a woman love each other very much, they cuddle is a special way and make a baby.
  
  How can I make this other person like me?
  Firstly, you need to record all your actions for a whole month.
  Once you have that footage, kidnap the person. Then randomly torture them for a couple of days asking questions that are totally irrelevant to your purpose. This is to invoke a Stockholm syndrome with the torturer.
  Now, start showing clips of the video of yourself in different scenarios, and following that you test your victim with choices on their actions... such as way of walking, responding to people, types of clothing etc. If they choose the same as you would, they are rewarded. If not, they are beaten and tortured further.
  After about 18 months of this treatment, this person will be just like you.
  
  --
  Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
9. Re:Why is the sky blue? by RedDeadThumb · 2012-06-06 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  What I am interested in knowing, is did the children actually understand the explanation, or did they just pick the one that they understood the most of?
  Or perhaps the one that entertained them the most.
10. Re:Why is the sky blue? by MozeeToby · 2012-06-06 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  There are absolutely creationists who don't understand the concepts of evolution. Either because they were never taught it or because they were taught a ludicrous straw man by people peddling FUD. We can't forget that! If we do, whenever a creationist asks a legitimate question about evolution we'll go off on them instead of providing an informative answer. The odds of an answer, no matter how informative, opening someone's eyes might be very slim but it is non-zero and every mind opened is a good thing. I know that I myself have answered questions from people who self describable "don't get evolution" and received back words of thanks and sometimes another, more informed and interesting question that keeps the discussion moving forward. It doesn't happen often but it does happen.
  If someone is being a troll do what you will to them. But if someone merely asks a question we should try to give them an informed answer, even if it's a question that's been answered before.
11. Re:Why is the sky blue? by Atzanteol · 2012-06-06 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Rayleigh scattering.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
12. Re:Why is the sky blue? by SplashMyBandit · 2012-06-06 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's the blueness. Don't forget Mie scattering for the whiteness (clouds, haze etc).
13. Re:Why is the sky blue? by TapeCutter · 2012-06-06 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you can make a small child understand, you've got some hope of making an adult creationist understand
  Nope, much simpler to make a child understand, they have far less religious baggage and a maleable worldview. Adult creationists were brainwashed into their position as a child so it takes more than plain reasoning to get them to let go of their baggage. A brainwashed kid grows and joins the adult army of 'useful idiots', which is why certain groups don't want things like evolution or climate science taught in schools (it inteferes with their recuriting methods).
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
14. Re:Why is the sky blue? by TapeCutter · 2012-06-06 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  In the late 90's I started debunking mis-information about climate science on /. Back then giving an informative answer about AGW was often moderated troll or flamebait . I don't know that I changed a single mind (other than my own and my father's) but 10yrs later the world (and /.) has turned 180deg on the subject, the people to thank for that remarkable turnaround are the climate scientists themselves who (despite the stereotype) have done a remarkable job of communicating their work. Even more remarkable when you consider they have been fighting to be heard over powerful vested interests that have created and funded over 50 non-think-tanks in K-street that actively seek to discredit them and their work using sophisticated propganda, character assasination of those at the top of the field, half truths, red-herrings, perversion of the justice system, and plain old bullshit.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Schrödinger's cat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:33 · Score: 1

The superposition of states at the quantum level.
Flame by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:34 · Score: 1

Alan Alda is behind the Flame virus? That was surprising
Evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:36 · Score: 0

Based on the recent submissions this is clearly needed.
1. Re:evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Republicans and other Americans too if I may say so.
Re:Next Question? by cpu6502 · 2012-06-06 08:38 · Score: 1

Because he's a really good host for the show and therefore not a "has been" but an "is now". Just like the guy who narrates for BBC/History Channel's "Life" and other docs.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I've got one by slashmydots · 2012-06-06 08:39 · Score: 1

Why is Jersey Shore still on the air? That, or as I'm sure a little dude would suggest, why do 'splosion 'splode?
The burning question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:44 · Score: 0

What is love?
(Baby, don't hurt me.)
1. Re:The burning question... by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-06-06 08:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Can you explain why you're never gonna give me up?
2. Re:The burning question... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  It has already been explained in this excellent video. I am surprised you have not seen this.
3. Re:The burning question... by narcc · 2012-06-06 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong meme.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Next Question? by eyenot · 2012-06-06 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

God, dude. Alan Alda has made significant contributions to the public understanding of science through hosting a show about it. He never plays the smart-ass, he's always unassuming and humble, and through that honesty (and by way of interviewing authorities on various subjects) he brings the most complex scientific concepts down to a common level that most people can understand. It's why his show is so popular. So, it may have been quite awhile since M*A*S*H* but that doesn't mean he hasn't stayed relevant. In fact, if Alan Alda wanted to interview a famous scientist -- better yet, YOUR favorite famous scientist, take your pick (I'll pick Stephen Hawking for you in your absence) -- he would get that interview at nearly a moment's notice! There's no scientist who wouldn't want to be interviewed by him and seen on his show. So, Big-Mouth, how many famous scientists can you speak with whenever you feel like it?

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
actors perfect the art of communication by peter303 · 2012-06-06 08:48 · Score: 1

And its nice to have a few interested in communicating science, and spend years learning how to do it.
Obvioulsy: The other three elements by eric31415927 · 2012-06-06 08:50 · Score: 1

Now with Fire explained, children should learn about Earth, Wind, and Water.
flame : Fire
as
solid : Earth
as
gas : Wind
as
liquid : Water
1. Re:Obvioulsy: The other three elements by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  and HEART!
2. Re:Obvioulsy: The other three elements by eyenot · 2012-06-06 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, gee, there, don't forget about gold. Because you're trying to turn children into gold, right?
  
  --
  "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Re:Next Question? by pegasustonans · 2012-06-06 08:51 · Score: 1

Because he's a really good host for the show and therefore not a "has been" but an "is now". Just like the guy who narrates for BBC/History Channel's "Life" and other docs.
I don't know if I'd equivocate David Attenborough with Alan Alda given the shape and span of their respective careers.
Nevertheless, I agree with you, their narration style is both informative and engaging, something few narrators achieve in modern broadcasting (unlike the vanilla quality of Oprah Winfrey and the others who narrate BBC's documentary series for an American audience).

--
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
ASIDE: I went to the NYC World Science Festival by peter303 · 2012-06-06 08:53 · Score: 1

It was last weekend. Alda's Flame presentation was one of 41 pieces. I saw four presentations, but not Alda's. The four were in the "Big ideas" track and panels on currently practicing researchers on a specific topic. And I learned more than I had expected. The were other tracks on the arts and for children. I'd recommend this conference to others, even if you work it into a NYC vacation which I did.
I didn't think by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 08:57 · Score: 0

that it was that great. I'm not trying to be super negative, it mentioned all the terms and stuff but that's not really what's important. Having an actual understanding is much more important. This would be good if you had to pass a test on it.
Re:Next Question? by jedidiah · 2012-06-06 08:58 · Score: 2

Some people judge based on the message rather than the messenger.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Next Question? by jedidiah · 2012-06-06 09:00 · Score: 1

Ricardo Montalban was a kick ass narrator.
Probably didn't have 1/10th the career of Attenborough but he was still a kick ass narrator.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Next Question? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:04 · Score: 0

Alan Alda played the only likeable Republican character in a television series ever, which is no mean feat.
Usefulness? by Corson · 2012-06-06 09:05 · Score: 0

Mankind has learned and used fire for over 100,000 yrs without needing to explain in words to a 10-12 year old something that is best grasped through the senses.
1. Re:Usefulness? by ae1294 · 2012-06-06 09:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Mankind has learned and used fire for over 100,000 yrs without needing to explain in words to a 10-12 year old something that is best grasped through the senses.
  Pretty sure the number you where looking for was 6000... 6000 years.... your welcome...
2. Re:Usefulness? by Corson · 2012-06-06 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  The Cro-Magnon man was dated at ~35,000 BC. Okay, maybe calling "mankind" the puny apes before that age is too much. :)
3. Re:Usefulness? by ae1294 · 2012-06-06 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Reference: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
4. Re:Usefulness? by Kittenman · 2012-06-06 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  The Cro-Magnon man was dated at ~35,000 BC.
  
  Dinner and a movie? Tricky in those days.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
5. Re:Usefulness? by Corson · 2012-06-06 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  Hahaha! Yes, he was carbon-dated... it's a new kind of ice-cream! ;)
6. Re:Usefulness? by drkim · 2012-06-06 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Cro-Magnon man was smarter than you think. Didn't need to pay for dinner and a movie.
  Just took her straight to the bear-skin rug in front of the fireplace...
Re:Next Question? by cpu6502 · 2012-06-06 09:07 · Score: 1

>>>I'll pick Stephen Hawking for you in your absence
Good example of a bad narrator (when he did Masters of Science Fiction). At least the stories were good. Maybe they should have had Alan Alda narrate instead. Or the guys who did the Twilight Zone/Outer Limits in the 90s.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Is this aimed at 11-year-olds?!? by MartinSchou · 2012-06-06 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a great explanation, but why does it feel like it's explaining it to a 6-year-old?
I have a hard time imagining my 11-year-old self taking it serious at all.
Personally I think they should change the challenge a bit. Explain X to an adult, but in a way that an 11-year-old can grasp.
Stop talking down to kids.
1. Re:Is this aimed at 11-year-olds?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The thing is, it's talking down but it's also spouting all kinds of random vocabulary that they don't need. Getting a basic understanding of the concept is much more important than knowing what everything's called.
2. Re:Is this aimed at 11-year-olds?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 10:12 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I think that is a natural result of someone being in the education system (eg. a grad student like we see here). It's what they know and what they're used to.
  That's exactly the way most teaching takes place and it's idiotic.
3. Re:Is this aimed at 11-year-olds?!? by FrootLoops · 2012-06-06 11:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Verily, betimes jargon need be eschewed for the erudition of the laity.
  Err--I mean, sometimes avoiding big words is the best way to teach people something.
  That's not universally true though. Some concepts are just complicated and avoiding jargon makes them harder to understand--in the long term. An example from math:
  Jargon-filled: "An nth degree polynomial has at most n roots."
  Non-jargony: "Suppose you are given a starting number and have a fixed process you use to create an ending number. Let's also say the process has a few rules. You begin with the starting number and are allowed to do three types of operations on your current number: (1) add a number from a list you chose beforehand; (2) multiply by a number from a list you chose beforehand; or (3) multiply by the starting number. For how many starting numbers can your process end up creating 0? It turns out the answer is at most the number of times you used operation (3), plus one, unless you multiplied by 0 at some point in operation (2) in which case every ending number is 0."
  Now suppose you were interested in proving the statement. The jargon-filled version can be followed up by basic properties of polynomial factorization which gives the result quickly. You could translate those properties without jargon but there would be three long-term problems: (1) the result would not be very memorable since the important individual ideas wouldn't be picked out for special emphasis with special words; (2) the ideas presented wouldn't be very portable (that is, applicable to other problems) since they're not clearly broken into usable pieces; (3) it would take a long time to communicate with others on similar topics without jargon (they'd invent their own, actually).
  Still, when teaching things to a general audience that probably won't continue down a particular line of inquiry, jargon is a bad plan.
4. Re:Is this aimed at 11-year-olds?!? by sloth+jr · 2012-06-07 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's setting the hook; you use the actual words out so that someone who does get interested in this stuff has a jumping off place for, at the very least, a wikipedia fishing trip.
Tides & Currents by AioKits · 2012-06-06 09:19 · Score: 1

I'm for explaining how tides and currents work.. Why the ocean is higher at some point in the day, but lower in others... What's it like beneath the surface when the water is calm... That stuff...

I hate deep water too, deathly afraid of it.

--
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
1. Re:Tides & Currents by Monchanger · 2012-06-07 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Bill O'Reilly can tell you all about that. It has something to do with miscommunication.
I understood this video . . . by NicknamesAreStupid · 2012-06-06 09:20 · Score: 1

. . . . so any kids will, too. Pity that I never saw this when I was their age.
Higher ed? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 09:50 · Score: 0

/. = flames galore, more than its fair share of explanations amid conspiracies, and
yet nary a grad in sight.
Alda by CAIMLAS · 2012-06-06 10:14 · Score: 1

Alda is quite the personality and has
How about these questions:
* Why is the sky blue?
* Why does water freeze?
* How is charcoal made? (relating it to fire, of course)
For those who are curious, he had an interesting discussion with Bob Osserman entitled M*A*T*H some years ago. You can download the video of it here: http://www.msri.org/web/msri/online-videos/-/video/showVideo/11928

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 10:26 · Score: 0

explain evolution so an 11 year old can understand it, and maybe the republicans will then understand it also!
Re:Next Question? by fustakrakich · 2012-06-06 11:00 · Score: 1

Ricardo Montalban was a kick ass narrator.
Yep

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
this is a task better left to Sesame Street by PJ6 · 2012-06-06 11:58 · Score: 1

They'd do it and be great at it, if our country valued science a little more.
Wrong Flame by whitesea · 2012-06-06 12:07 · Score: 1

Finally! Now I can explain to my bosses what the Flame virus means! 11-year old is exactly the level of understanding we need.
RTFA and cry. This is the wrong flame!
First, everybody knows it's there. Then, it has been there for millennia. Finally, nobody is afraid of it.
What a disappointment.
soot is not from methane by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 13:33 · Score: 0

As the hydrocarbons in the wax breakdown to due to the heat of the flame you wind up with a fair amount of acetylene, only the C-H bond in acetylene is strong enough to resist being extracted by oxygen. I know this because I first discovered it. It is the acetylene that combines to form the soot. Nice video and good to keep the "lego" molecules simple for the intended audience.
Re:Next Question? by complete+loony · 2012-06-06 13:53 · Score: 1

I'd pick Sheldon Cooper ;). The episode almost writes itself...

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
slightly off topic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 14:52 · Score: 0

A decade ago I was a summer intern at US national laboratory. At one point we had a get-together, B-B-Q at a local lake. We had everything we needed: charcoal, food, paper plates, etc. Except that no one was a smoker, and no one had thought to bring matches or lighter. F--k. Dangit. Here we were, the best and brightest budding scientists of our generation ... and we couldn't reproduce fire.
Eventually we begged a few coals from a fellow pickniker.
1. Re:slightly off topic by drkim · 2012-06-06 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, you were a group of the "best and brightest budding scientists" and no one wore prescription eyeglasses? Or was this at night?
Re:torture and hell? by drkim · 2012-06-06 19:14 · Score: 1

All educational media use this scenario now.
Re:Next Question? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 02:38 · Score: 0

>>>I'll pick Stephen Hawking for you in your absence
Good example of a bad narrator
Ok, but what exactly does that have to do with Stephen Hawking being an interviewee?
great explanation but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-07 11:41 · Score: 0

now my 11 year old is asking me about the guy with the pitch fork. thx Ben.