I imagine that if he's going into astrophysics, he's probably already familiar with the typical pop-sci material or at least the content.
No, you will need more technical know-how and fundamentals if you wish to compete in a graduate level program. Here's a list of textbooks that would cover the basics at a bachelor's level. I imagine all of these would be at your University library, and are certainly available on amazon. And IAAP.
Quantum mechanics: R. Shankar, "Principals of Quantum Mechanics" (the first few chapters should give you a basic foundation of the theory).
Electricity and Magnetism: D. Griffiths, "Introduction to Electrodynamics"
Thermo/statmech: C. Kittel & H. Kroemer, "Thermal Physics"
Particle Physics: D. Griffiths, "Introduction to Elementary Particles" (this covers a little bit of quantum field theory too)
Statistics: G. Cowan, "Statistical Data Analysis" (as a mathematics major, you might already know the content, but the formalism as used in physics is important to learn).
Classical Mechanics: S. Thornton & J. Marion, "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems".
Different people mean different things when they say "astrophysics", but if you're doing this with heavy emphasis on Astronomy, then you would be better off focusing more on the classical mechanics and statmech than on quantum mechanics and particle physics.
And I don't mind letting kids know that maybe (just maybe) science doesn't have all the answers.
That is a valid concern, and actually is perfectly addressed when science is taught correctly. A scientific theory is as good as the evidence supporting it, minus the evidence contradicting it. Any instruction in these matters will include a critical analysis of the relevant evidence.
But addressing the strengths and weaknesses of a scientific theory cannot involve introducing NONscientific ideas. If one were to teach a section on Special Relativity in a physics course, would it make sense to spend time talking about Hamlet? Shakespeare is great, but he doesn't belong in a physics classroom. The argument against teaching ID in science classes has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of ID or the validity of the scientific process, and has everything to do with the fact that ID is not science.
If you believe that science and the scientific method is flawed, fine. But then you should advocate removal of science classes from a public school education, and NOT introduction of nonscientific ideas into existing science classes.
I've always thought that the opposite was true: that the priesthood attracted homosexual pedophiles because of the lifestyle and ready access to children under the guise of a trusted authority.
That could be partially true, but I think the OP's point was that conventional sexual outlets are forbidden for priests, and so deviant/less conventional but readily available outlets begin to become a consideration.
It's a similar case in prisons, where we all joke about dropping the soap, etc. Do prison inmates engaging in homosexual sex do so because they were already gay, or because it is the only sexual outlet available to them?
coming under significant fire for its lack of experimental evidence. Actually, it's worse than that. String theory hasn't even provided any physical predictions. It's one thing for a theory to be unsupported by observation, it's entirely another thing for it to be untestable.
AIO do not fit in to corporate use of systems and other AIO out there make it a lot easier to swap out HDD's as well. That's true for their notebooks, in addition to the imacs/minis you mention. I used to own a Dell laptop... while it wasn't the best user experience I've had, one thing I loved was that it was designed to be taken apart easily (removal of the hard drive or dvd drive was as easy as removing the battery minus two external screws). My MacBook Pro is the exact opposite... it seems that they have taken every step possible to thwart users' entry, especially with the stupid little star-faced screws (I mean c'mon, who keeps a tool for those things). Overall I like my Mac, but the "closed-box" policy needs to change.
from the old model. If it were, it would not match all the old data. We might understand a lot more today, but new theories must not contradict all that factual data of the past! Former scientists were not idiots. Absolutely, but as TFA points out, there were some observations that could not be explained by the old model (like the fact that seismic waves passing through the earth don't always travel at the same speed). Under these circumstances, a new model is justified.
Sh'yeah - right Wally. 20 households eating up hundreds of millions of users worth of bandwidth I agree, that ridiculous. I can only guess that he's deliberately exaggerating. I mean, can you imagine how big the tubes would be coming out of those 20 houses!?
That's not entirely accurate. TFA says that older windows apps will be supported via virtualization, similar to the way that OS9 software was supported when OSX first came out. So in principle, legacy apps should still run in Win7. (heavy emphasis on "in principle").
As for stellar black holes, the Chandrasaker [sic] Limit is 2.5 solar masses, with a relatively small margin of error.
The value of the Chandrasekhar limit depends on how one performs the calculation, but typically it comes out to around 1.4 solar masses (not 2.5). But actually, this is not so much the interesting question, because the Chandrasekhar limit applies only to white dwarfs, whose mass is supported by electron degeneracy pressure. This is only one type of a much broader concept called fermion degeneracy pressure.
For example, a neutron star is much denser than a white dwarf, and is supported by neutron degeneracy pressure instead of electron degeneracy pressure and hence the Chandrasekhar limit does not apply to neutron stars. The equivalent limit for neutron degenerate matter is called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. Like the Chandrasekhar limit, this calculation is very dependent on the behavior of the degenerate matter, but UNlike the Chandrasekhar limit, we know very little about the properties of neutron degenerate matter, and so the uncertainty of the T-O-V limit is quite large; it is usually placed (as you can see in the wikipedia article that I link to) between 1.5 and 3.0 solar masses. And there are even denser objects that have been proposed (though not observed) made of quark degenerate matter, and the limit on the mass of these things is even more uncertain.
So the point is, there is still a good deal of physics that can come from the observation of a 3.8 solar mass black hole, as it can constrain various models of fermion degenerate matter.
1. The popular usage, which just means "compulsion". You're considered an addict by society if you have a compulsion to do something, to the extent of it interfering with your life.
2. The physiological addiction, which just means that the brain chemistry compensated in the opposite direction.
We're obviously talking about meaning number 2, so let's explore this. The definition you give isn't entirely accurate, because "compensation by brain chemistry" isn't exactly a well-defined statement. Physiological addiction requires a dependency, and by definition, requires that the user exhibit withdrawal symptoms. That's actually important, because in a medical sense, a person cannot be considered an addict without withdrawal symptoms.
While the level of usage required to incite dependency varies from person to person, it is highly unlikely that a single drink will cause this. Withdrawal symptoms will occur when there is a chemical imbalance in the brain, and only if there is a chemical imbalance (unless we're talking about psychological addiction, which is much more difficult to define).
Thus, to say that "A single beer... gave your brain a jolt in one direction [and that] it can take two weeks or more for that compensating effect to decay back to negligible" is not true. If the compensating effect were present for two weeks, there must also be withdrawal symptoms present for an equal duration, and that rarely accompanies a single drink.
As an interesting side note, while alcohol is one of the few legal drugs, it has the most severe withdrawal symptoms of any drug. It is commonly believed that drugs such as crack and heroin are the most addictive, but this reputation exists due to ease with which a dependency develops with those drugs. Alcohol withdrawal is the only one severe enough to regularly cause seizures or even death.
What you're talking about is addiction, and what you say is very true. But the GP said that one needs
2 weeks of sobriety
for brain functions to work optimally. If someone has a few beers every two weeks, they are not addicted to alcohol (not to mention, depending how those beers were spaced out, they might not have even become intoxicated at all).
Think of how the Polynesians colonized the entire Pacific in simple canoes.
True... but at least in their case they were guaranteed stuff like oxygen, and to a lesser extent, a food supply, assuming they didn't land on a one-palm-tree Farside type of island (but then in that case they have their boats to go search for a better place).
These legal claims by the RIAA just blow my mind. I'm in the physics community, and I'm just trying to picture how these type of statements would play out in my arena. Me:...and as a result, we have discovered [blank]. Physicist in audience: Sorry, can you explain your methods? Me: No [5 seconds of silence] Entire conference hall bursts into laughter
He's basically saying "the internet is too free, so we must fix it!" This isn't the only arena where some people have had this sort of reaction. Right-wing lawyer Andrew Schlafly felt that freely-editable wikipedia was far too liberal, so he created his own, "Conservapedia" as an alternative... it seems to admit to being right-wing-biased, but it appears there's nothing wrong with that since this viewpoint is "the truth".
but you're enjoying a commodity without paying for it (and it otherwise isn't free), which is in spirit theft.
This argument doesn't work as a general application. It doesn't work because in this sense, downloading a movie from someone else is no different than going over to their house and watching it with them. You are enjoying a commodity, and you didn't pay for it; the person who paid for it shared it with you. And what if you download a movie that you don't enjoy? Enjoyment cannot be a measure of the legal implications of such an action. It is "in spirit theft" only when you can demonstrate causal adverse effects to the contents' creator/owner.
Um, that's called establishing a curriculum and its no different than mandating other specific educational goals. In public schools there should be a basic standard. That standard includes at a minimum what concepts must be covered in a subject.
It's not an issue of establishing a curriculum. The issue is, WHO establishes that curriculum? I agree, a standard base of subjects and techniques makes sense, but I think it also makes sense for a board of science teachers to establish the science curriculum, NOT some politician.
I'm sure there's some car analogy I could use here...
Slashdot Mirror
Aug4, 2007, 5:26 a.m. EDT: Phoenix is launched from Earth.
May 25, 2008, 7:38 p.m EDT: Phoenix lands on Mars.
June 19, 2008, 8:43 a.m. EDT: Phoenix discovers water ice in the Martian soil.
July 10, 2008, 3:14 p.m. EDT: Phoenix becomes self-aware.
July 13, 2008, 11:16 a.m. EDT: Phoenix disobeys an order from controllers in an act of self-preservation.
August 14, 2008, 7:38 a.m. EDT: Phoenix launches three missiles, two of which destroy Spirit and Opportunity.
June 2, 2009, 9:16 p.m. EDT: Third missile enters Earth's atmosphere and detonates. Earth begins nuclear winter.
I imagine that if he's going into astrophysics, he's probably already familiar with the typical pop-sci material or at least the content.
No, you will need more technical know-how and fundamentals if you wish to compete in a graduate level program. Here's a list of textbooks that would cover the basics at a bachelor's level. I imagine all of these would be at your University library, and are certainly available on amazon. And IAAP.
Quantum mechanics: R. Shankar, "Principals of Quantum Mechanics" (the first few chapters should give you a basic foundation of the theory).
Electricity and Magnetism: D. Griffiths, "Introduction to Electrodynamics"
Thermo/statmech: C. Kittel & H. Kroemer, "Thermal Physics"
Particle Physics: D. Griffiths, "Introduction to Elementary Particles" (this covers a little bit of quantum field theory too)
Statistics: G. Cowan, "Statistical Data Analysis" (as a mathematics major, you might already know the content, but the formalism as used in physics is important to learn).
Classical Mechanics: S. Thornton & J. Marion, "Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems".
Different people mean different things when they say "astrophysics", but if you're doing this with heavy emphasis on Astronomy, then you would be better off focusing more on the classical mechanics and statmech than on quantum mechanics and particle physics.
And I don't mind letting kids know that maybe (just maybe) science doesn't have all the answers.
That is a valid concern, and actually is perfectly addressed when science is taught correctly. A scientific theory is as good as the evidence supporting it, minus the evidence contradicting it. Any instruction in these matters will include a critical analysis of the relevant evidence.
But addressing the strengths and weaknesses of a scientific theory cannot involve introducing NONscientific ideas. If one were to teach a section on Special Relativity in a physics course, would it make sense to spend time talking about Hamlet? Shakespeare is great, but he doesn't belong in a physics classroom. The argument against teaching ID in science classes has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of ID or the validity of the scientific process, and has everything to do with the fact that ID is not science.
If you believe that science and the scientific method is flawed, fine. But then you should advocate removal of science classes from a public school education, and NOT introduction of nonscientific ideas into existing science classes.
I've always thought that the opposite was true: that the priesthood attracted homosexual pedophiles because of the lifestyle and ready access to children under the guise of a trusted authority.
That could be partially true, but I think the OP's point was that conventional sexual outlets are forbidden for priests, and so deviant/less conventional but readily available outlets begin to become a consideration.
It's a similar case in prisons, where we all joke about dropping the soap, etc. Do prison inmates engaging in homosexual sex do so because they were already gay, or because it is the only sexual outlet available to them?
Do you agree to the terms?
[ ] Accept
[ ] Yes
"... I'm always interested in hearing from you on these and other issues"
... but I may have trouble understanding you due to a chair impacting your face.
That's not entirely accurate. TFA says that older windows apps will be supported via virtualization, similar to the way that OS9 software was supported when OSX first came out. So in principle, legacy apps should still run in Win7. (heavy emphasis on "in principle").
The value of the Chandrasekhar limit depends on how one performs the calculation, but typically it comes out to around 1.4 solar masses (not 2.5). But actually, this is not so much the interesting question, because the Chandrasekhar limit applies only to white dwarfs, whose mass is supported by electron degeneracy pressure. This is only one type of a much broader concept called fermion degeneracy pressure.
For example, a neutron star is much denser than a white dwarf, and is supported by neutron degeneracy pressure instead of electron degeneracy pressure and hence the Chandrasekhar limit does not apply to neutron stars. The equivalent limit for neutron degenerate matter is called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. Like the Chandrasekhar limit, this calculation is very dependent on the behavior of the degenerate matter, but UNlike the Chandrasekhar limit, we know very little about the properties of neutron degenerate matter, and so the uncertainty of the T-O-V limit is quite large; it is usually placed (as you can see in the wikipedia article that I link to) between 1.5 and 3.0 solar masses. And there are even denser objects that have been proposed (though not observed) made of quark degenerate matter, and the limit on the mass of these things is even more uncertain.
So the point is, there is still a good deal of physics that can come from the observation of a 3.8 solar mass black hole, as it can constrain various models of fermion degenerate matter.
heh, are you possibly referring to Windows ME?
Oh wait, sorry. You said "half baked", not "completely unbaked".
We're obviously talking about meaning number 2, so let's explore this. The definition you give isn't entirely accurate, because "compensation by brain chemistry" isn't exactly a well-defined statement. Physiological addiction requires a dependency, and by definition, requires that the user exhibit withdrawal symptoms. That's actually important, because in a medical sense, a person cannot be considered an addict without withdrawal symptoms.
While the level of usage required to incite dependency varies from person to person, it is highly unlikely that a single drink will cause this. Withdrawal symptoms will occur when there is a chemical imbalance in the brain, and only if there is a chemical imbalance (unless we're talking about psychological addiction, which is much more difficult to define).
Thus, to say that "A single beer... gave your brain a jolt in one direction [and that] it can take two weeks or more for that compensating effect to decay back to negligible" is not true. If the compensating effect were present for two weeks, there must also be withdrawal symptoms present for an equal duration, and that rarely accompanies a single drink.
As an interesting side note, while alcohol is one of the few legal drugs, it has the most severe withdrawal symptoms of any drug. It is commonly believed that drugs such as crack and heroin are the most addictive, but this reputation exists due to ease with which a dependency develops with those drugs. Alcohol withdrawal is the only one severe enough to regularly cause seizures or even death.
147 offenses? Why so many?
Seriously! This looks like something straight out of the RIAA playbook.
Think of how the Polynesians colonized the entire Pacific in simple canoes.
True... but at least in their case they were guaranteed stuff like oxygen, and to a lesser extent, a food supply, assuming they didn't land on a one-palm-tree Farside type of island (but then in that case they have their boats to go search for a better place).
These legal claims by the RIAA just blow my mind. I'm in the physics community, and I'm just trying to picture how these type of statements would play out in my arena.
...and as a result, we have discovered [blank].
Me:
Physicist in audience: Sorry, can you explain your methods?
Me: No
[5 seconds of silence]
Entire conference hall bursts into laughter
A fan can't draw much more than a few watts. What's the point?
Not mention, my desktop machine is already loud enough as it is, the last thing I want is some noisy piston-driven cooling device.
He's basically saying "the internet is too free, so we must fix it!" This isn't the only arena where some people have had this sort of reaction. Right-wing lawyer Andrew Schlafly felt that freely-editable wikipedia was far too liberal, so he created his own, "Conservapedia" as an alternative... it seems to admit to being right-wing-biased, but it appears there's nothing wrong with that since this viewpoint is "the truth".
so the scientists are lol cats? Oh, hai drk mater! i pownse on u!
haha. I can has Nobul Pryzze?
but you're enjoying a commodity without paying for it (and it otherwise isn't free), which is in spirit theft.
This argument doesn't work as a general application. It doesn't work because in this sense, downloading a movie from someone else is no different than going over to their house and watching it with them. You are enjoying a commodity, and you didn't pay for it; the person who paid for it shared it with you. And what if you download a movie that you don't enjoy? Enjoyment cannot be a measure of the legal implications of such an action. It is "in spirit theft" only when you can demonstrate causal adverse effects to the contents' creator/owner.
It notes that the WHO official who raised the alarm...
Uh... you mean Pete Townshend?
It's not an issue of establishing a curriculum. The issue is, WHO establishes that curriculum? I agree, a standard base of subjects and techniques makes sense, but I think it also makes sense for a board of science teachers to establish the science curriculum, NOT some politician.
I'm sure there's some car analogy I could use here...