Let's see the ridiculous straw arguments now that this somehow explains why we are behind in Math and other Sciences.
So you are making pre-emptive attacks on any potential straw-man arguments? Clever. I think these should be called "straw ghosts" - that is, anticipated straw man arguments...
Interesting, but these 'geomagic squares' of Lee Swallows are generalised in a different way. It is the dimension of the elements of the square, not the square itself. So, in his formalism, numerical magic squares (of any dimension) are just 1-D geomagic squares, where the numbers could represent line segments or arcs of a circle.
Absolutely. In any case, the person _usually_ overlooked in the story of the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA is Rosalind Franklin, who was the one that produced the crystal data that Watson and Crick used.
Alternative hypothesis is that nutters sometimes have a real advantage in discovering the truly unexpected, and thus win Nobel Prizes. That doesn't stop them being nutters. Overstated, I know, but you see what I mean.
Are you referring to Kary Mullis?:) Anyway, I agree - this does seem a good possibility. If you have to think outside the box too much, sometimes you fall out.
Now see, I find that fascinating! The question is why? Do they really think they can now be "scientists" (method be damned) by attempting to be a pioneer without fear of ridicule and reprisal? Or, has the fame of the elite Nobel prize got them so drunk with fame and fortune that they will now say and do anything among the ignorant?
Well one clue is that they usually move into a field that they know little about, but (I guess) think that they completely understand. So, for example, a physicist tries his hand at research into intelligence and determines that people with black skin should not breed because they are idiots (or some such foolishness).
I don't think it is limited to Nobel winners either. It also happens to older/retired scientists, who feel free to pursue new topics. Much of the time this is a good thing; sometimes you get geologists saying that climate change is all nonsense...
Audio frequencies? So perhaps someone in the lab is chanting "A...C...G..C..G...A..T" while the experiment is going on, and this induces DNA to form in the second tube! (j/k)
I absolutely agree that the results look dubious at best - but there is this part of the paper:
The following controls were found to suppress the EMS transmission in the water tube:
Time of exposure of the coil...blah blah...
Absence of DNA in tube #1
Contamination does seem the most likely explanation. Although it does seem to be consistent contamination - they test 'transmission' of sequence A and get a band on the gel corresponding to the known weight of sequence A, and the same with sequence B. In general, this kind of research strikes me as Nobel prize disease...
I followed that link too. I remember on b3ta there used to be this guy who posted terrible/awesome photoshopped pictures of Dick Cheney with lasers coming from his eyes with backgrounds of lightning, and zombie George Bushes. We tracked them down to sites like this Rense fellow - I never know whether to laugh or pity them...
Heh. This explanation appeals to me. It reminds me a little bit of an article called "Playing to Win" that talks about 'scrubs'. If you haven't read it, a scrub will complain when an experienced player seems to exploit loopholes but is actually just playing the game.
I think that the two situations you mention (science and journalism) can feel a bit like games sometimes. Perhaps the players are becoming confused as to the real purpose of the game. In the case of science, it is to advance knowledge; not to advance the career of the scientist. For journalism it is to increase understanding of the world in the people of the world; not to sell newspapers.
The problem is, and will always be, that papers need to be sold and scientists need to have some career measure.
Maybe it's just the the truths being presented in the article are the sort of 'truths' that are hard to measure 100% objectively.
Alternatively, this article is almost unbearably stupid. It starts off heavily implying that reality itself is somehow changeable - including a surfing professor who says something like "It's like the Universe doesn't like me...maaan".
This is just a journalistic tactic, though. Start with a ridiculous premise to get people reading, then break out what's really happening : poor use of statistics in science. What was really the point of implying that truth can change?
Go figure:
My main complaint about the movie was that ultrafast DNA analysis was unrealistic. What's next?. A device that transmits the sound of explosions in space?
The worst part was when they get their DNA analysis results, and its like several sheets of "GAGATTATATGAGAGATAGAGATAG...". Firstly, it would be more like several telephone directories, or perhaps just a list of single mutations. Secondly, it would be meaningless without some extra analysis on top (annotations, basically) even to a geneticist.
'Prof. Lewis's article talks about the universal question "Why did they teach me the quadratic formula when I will never use it?"'
Well, *YOU* will never use it. I'll be using it day in and day out, plus the formula is flawed in my field of expertise and needs a bit of fine tuning to be accurate for variable photon flux on the same angles.
Two can play at this game:
No, *I* will not be using it because I mostly work with discrete maths like graph theory, group theory, and combinatorics. I'll be too busy working out how to perform optimum layout of chemical graphs using equivalence classes of symmetric atoms calculated by lexicographically sorted spanning trees.
There, do I win a prize now for being clever like you? Or are you just an idiot who can't work out that I obviously meant the vast majority of people, and not scientists or engineers?
The point that seems to be lost here for so many people who talk this way about Math is that in the end anything is an "art" for higher end professionals and enthusiasts of a particular field of study.
Different meanings of the word 'art'. As you say, if an activity is 'an art' it means that it can be carried out at a masterful level - and perhaps intuitively. What I think the article is talking about is the similarity of Mathematics to Art. Again I should mention the 'Beauty of Equations' program (see below) where the presenter - who is an art critic - talks about Dirac's ideas on mathematical beauty. He said that it takes an experienced mathematician to recognise beauty in mathematics. So, just as with Art, it is essential to take the time to learn about and invest in Mathematics before you can recognise the beauty.
There was a BBC4 program recently called "Beautiful Equations" where an art critic went round various mathematicians asking about E=MC^2, F=G(m1m2/r^2), S=A/4, and er the Dirac Equation.
The point about most of these examples they chose - apart from being conveniently in the UK - was that they were short. Also that they are directly related to important ideas about how the Universe works. So mass can be converted to energy, bodies attract each other, black holes can shrink, and antimatter exists. Dirac was particularly chosen because he believed that if you are given a choice between two possible formulations of (or equations for) a problem, you should chose the more elegant, shorter, more beautiful one.
...the processes of problem-solving can be generalised - see Polya's How to Solve It...
"How to Solve It" also talks about more general problem-solving than just mathematical problems - crossword puzzles, for example. Prof. Lewis's article talks about the universal question "Why did they teach me the quadratic formula when I will never use it?" and this is really the answer; doing mathematics (should) teach people how to solve any problem logically. Well, any problem that can be solved logically, of course.
Meanwhile a good teacher...knows where to provide you hints
Heh. Although a bit dry, one fun part of the book is where Pólya talks about giving hints to students : "Yet the teacher should be prepared for the case that even this fairly explicit hint is insufficient to shake the torpor of the students; and so he should be prepared to use a whole gamut of more and more explicit hints".
Wait a minute, that's not a swiss bank account number!:)
Paying for an alpha is not exactly paying for vapourware. It's more like half-condensed-ware or semisolidware. It's really been a fun game, and was (mostly) worth the money. Crashes every sunrise and sunset was annoying until a reinstall fixed that.
Is it an FPS? is it a Sim? is it something different?
tl;dr : Make castles and dig for gold while fighting off zombies and skeletons at night.
The weird thing is that in its alpha form (which I also bought, and have enjoyed) it has no point. I guess that would make it like a sim. There are various suggestions on the Get Satisfaction site about making it into some kind of dungeon crawl, or castle defense.
Technically, I suppose it is a 'sandbox' game, as it is like playing in a giant sandbox (Br Eng: Sandpit).
Regardless of whether you blame Minecraft's success on luck or Notch's genius, he's a rather poor programmer. If you read through the release notes on his blog, he's apparently incapable of adding features without breaking lots of stuff on the way and waiting for him to fix basic functionality can take months.
I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that programming 'under the spotlight' can be very distracting. What with twitter, blog comments, and forums there are far too many ways for the customer base to contact Notch 24/7. That's got to make fixing stuff hard if people are constantly shouting "FIX IT!" in your ear.
It certainly looks like it. One interesting feature that was left out of the/. summary is that the 'wires' in the circuit are quorum sensing molecules - or signalling molecules that are sent and received by all the bacteria in a group. Except that the abstract refers to 'orthogonal' quorum sensing receivers and producers, so I guess each colony make one compound and senses another? Interesting stuff.
Personally, I'd consider diplomats being "diplomatic" in their choice of words a step ahead. Right now it feels like office gossipping, i.e. smiling at your boss or coworker when they're around and then telling very ugly stories about them as soon as they turn their back.
I may not be a diplomat, but I see no problem with honest reports from diplomats to the people back home. Lets take the comments about Putin 'playing Batman to Medvedev's Robin'. That's the diplomat's opinion - expressed in private - but no doubt it has some truth to it.
Obviously it would be undiplomatic for ambassadors to say such things to their host governments. Presumably they don't do that. Probably Putin is a bit of an arse sometimes - it might be useful for Washington to know this. How is it possibly bad for communications to reflect this?
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see the ridiculous straw arguments now that this somehow explains why we are behind in Math and other Sciences.
So you are making pre-emptive attacks on any potential straw-man arguments? Clever. I think these should be called "straw ghosts" - that is, anticipated straw man arguments...
...shows that a lot of American teachers...
Fixed that for you.
Even though I am from the UK, it was pretty clear to me that "A study from Penn State...means that teachers..." was referring to American teachers.
They haven't started any wars recently
Well, they attacked the Hittites in 1274 BC, but no recent wars, no.
Interesting, but these 'geomagic squares' of Lee Swallows are generalised in a different way. It is the dimension of the elements of the square, not the square itself. So, in his formalism, numerical magic squares (of any dimension) are just 1-D geomagic squares, where the numbers could represent line segments or arcs of a circle.
Absolutely. In any case, the person _usually_ overlooked in the story of the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA is Rosalind Franklin, who was the one that produced the crystal data that Watson and Crick used.
Alternative hypothesis is that nutters sometimes have a real advantage in discovering the truly unexpected, and thus win Nobel Prizes. That doesn't stop them being nutters. Overstated, I know, but you see what I mean.
Are you referring to Kary Mullis? :) Anyway, I agree - this does seem a good possibility. If you have to think outside the box too much, sometimes you fall out.
Now see, I find that fascinating! The question is why? Do they really think they can now be "scientists" (method be damned) by attempting to be a pioneer without fear of ridicule and reprisal? Or, has the fame of the elite Nobel prize got them so drunk with fame and fortune that they will now say and do anything among the ignorant?
Well one clue is that they usually move into a field that they know little about, but (I guess) think that they completely understand. So, for example, a physicist tries his hand at research into intelligence and determines that people with black skin should not breed because they are idiots (or some such foolishness).
I don't think it is limited to Nobel winners either. It also happens to older/retired scientists, who feel free to pursue new topics. Much of the time this is a good thing; sometimes you get geologists saying that climate change is all nonsense...
Audio frequencies? So perhaps someone in the lab is chanting "A...C...G..C..G...A..T" while the experiment is going on, and this induces DNA to form in the second tube! (j/k)
The following controls were found to suppress the EMS transmission in the water tube:
Contamination does seem the most likely explanation. Although it does seem to be consistent contamination - they test 'transmission' of sequence A and get a band on the gel corresponding to the known weight of sequence A, and the same with sequence B. In general, this kind of research strikes me as Nobel prize disease...
I followed that link too. I remember on b3ta there used to be this guy who posted terrible/awesome photoshopped pictures of Dick Cheney with lasers coming from his eyes with backgrounds of lightning, and zombie George Bushes. We tracked them down to sites like this Rense fellow - I never know whether to laugh or pity them...
If I'm not mistaken, you're condoning the murder of his wife?
To be fair to Timothy, he's an idiot.
This made me laugh so hard :D
Heh. This explanation appeals to me. It reminds me a little bit of an article called "Playing to Win" that talks about 'scrubs'. If you haven't read it, a scrub will complain when an experienced player seems to exploit loopholes but is actually just playing the game.
I think that the two situations you mention (science and journalism) can feel a bit like games sometimes. Perhaps the players are becoming confused as to the real purpose of the game. In the case of science, it is to advance knowledge; not to advance the career of the scientist. For journalism it is to increase understanding of the world in the people of the world; not to sell newspapers.
The problem is, and will always be, that papers need to be sold and scientists need to have some career measure.
What is the point of answering a question and then asking the question?
What is the point of asking rhetorical questions?
Maybe it's just the the truths being presented in the article are the sort of 'truths' that are hard to measure 100% objectively.
Alternatively, this article is almost unbearably stupid. It starts off heavily implying that reality itself is somehow changeable - including a surfing professor who says something like "It's like the Universe doesn't like me...maaan".
This is just a journalistic tactic, though. Start with a ridiculous premise to get people reading, then break out what's really happening : poor use of statistics in science. What was really the point of implying that truth can change?
Go figure: My main complaint about the movie was that ultrafast DNA analysis was unrealistic. What's next?. A device that transmits the sound of explosions in space?
The worst part was when they get their DNA analysis results, and its like several sheets of "GAGATTATATGAGAGATAGAGATAG...". Firstly, it would be more like several telephone directories, or perhaps just a list of single mutations. Secondly, it would be meaningless without some extra analysis on top (annotations, basically) even to a geneticist.
'Prof. Lewis's article talks about the universal question "Why did they teach me the quadratic formula when I will never use it?"'
Well, *YOU* will never use it. I'll be using it day in and day out, plus the formula is flawed in my field of expertise and needs a bit of fine tuning to be accurate for variable photon flux on the same angles.
Two can play at this game:
No, *I* will not be using it because I mostly work with discrete maths like graph theory, group theory, and combinatorics. I'll be too busy working out how to perform optimum layout of chemical graphs using equivalence classes of symmetric atoms calculated by lexicographically sorted spanning trees.
There, do I win a prize now for being clever like you? Or are you just an idiot who can't work out that I obviously meant the vast majority of people, and not scientists or engineers?
The point that seems to be lost here for so many people who talk this way about Math is that in the end anything is an "art" for higher end professionals and enthusiasts of a particular field of study.
Different meanings of the word 'art'. As you say, if an activity is 'an art' it means that it can be carried out at a masterful level - and perhaps intuitively. What I think the article is talking about is the similarity of Mathematics to Art. Again I should mention the 'Beauty of Equations' program (see below) where the presenter - who is an art critic - talks about Dirac's ideas on mathematical beauty. He said that it takes an experienced mathematician to recognise beauty in mathematics. So, just as with Art, it is essential to take the time to learn about and invest in Mathematics before you can recognise the beauty.
There was a BBC4 program recently called "Beautiful Equations" where an art critic went round various mathematicians asking about E=MC^2, F=G(m1m2/r^2), S=A/4, and er the Dirac Equation.
The point about most of these examples they chose - apart from being conveniently in the UK - was that they were short. Also that they are directly related to important ideas about how the Universe works. So mass can be converted to energy, bodies attract each other, black holes can shrink, and antimatter exists. Dirac was particularly chosen because he believed that if you are given a choice between two possible formulations of (or equations for) a problem, you should chose the more elegant, shorter, more beautiful one.
...the processes of problem-solving can be generalised - see Polya's How to Solve It. ..
"How to Solve It" also talks about more general problem-solving than just mathematical problems - crossword puzzles, for example. Prof. Lewis's article talks about the universal question "Why did they teach me the quadratic formula when I will never use it?" and this is really the answer; doing mathematics (should) teach people how to solve any problem logically. Well, any problem that can be solved logically, of course.
Meanwhile a good teacher ...knows where to provide you hints
Heh. Although a bit dry, one fun part of the book is where Pólya talks about giving hints to students : "Yet the teacher should be prepared for the case that even this fairly explicit hint is insufficient to shake the torpor of the students; and so he should be prepared to use a whole gamut of more and more explicit hints".
Wait a minute, that's not a swiss bank account number! :)
Paying for an alpha is not exactly paying for vapourware. It's more like half-condensed-ware or semisolidware. It's really been a fun game, and was (mostly) worth the money. Crashes every sunrise and sunset was annoying until a reinstall fixed that.
>
Is it an FPS? is it a Sim? is it something different?
tl;dr : Make castles and dig for gold while fighting off zombies and skeletons at night.
The weird thing is that in its alpha form (which I also bought, and have enjoyed) it has no point. I guess that would make it like a sim. There are various suggestions on the Get Satisfaction site about making it into some kind of dungeon crawl, or castle defense.
Technically, I suppose it is a 'sandbox' game, as it is like playing in a giant sandbox (Br Eng: Sandpit).
Regardless of whether you blame Minecraft's success on luck or Notch's genius, he's a rather poor programmer. If you read through the release notes on his blog, he's apparently incapable of adding features without breaking lots of stuff on the way and waiting for him to fix basic functionality can take months.
I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know that programming 'under the spotlight' can be very distracting. What with twitter, blog comments, and forums there are far too many ways for the customer base to contact Notch 24/7. That's got to make fixing stuff hard if people are constantly shouting "FIX IT!" in your ear.
Robust multicellular computing using genetically encoded NOR gates and chemical ‘wires’ I am not a Biologist. Can some one verify if this is the original paper?
It certainly looks like it. One interesting feature that was left out of the /. summary is that the 'wires' in the circuit are quorum sensing molecules - or signalling molecules that are sent and received by all the bacteria in a group. Except that the abstract refers to 'orthogonal' quorum sensing receivers and producers, so I guess each colony make one compound and senses another? Interesting stuff.
Also. What do you call a virus used to kill bacteria computing?
Synthetic bacteriophage? http://en.wikipedia.com/Bacteriophage
Personally, I'd consider diplomats being "diplomatic" in their choice of words a step ahead. Right now it feels like office gossipping, i.e. smiling at your boss or coworker when they're around and then telling very ugly stories about them as soon as they turn their back.
I may not be a diplomat, but I see no problem with honest reports from diplomats to the people back home. Lets take the comments about Putin 'playing Batman to Medvedev's Robin'. That's the diplomat's opinion - expressed in private - but no doubt it has some truth to it.
Obviously it would be undiplomatic for ambassadors to say such things to their host governments. Presumably they don't do that. Probably Putin is a bit of an arse sometimes - it might be useful for Washington to know this. How is it possibly bad for communications to reflect this?