You are wise to realize your current situation is untenable. As a fellow non-socialite I have the following suggestions.
1.) Stick to what you know. Make yourself go on outings with workmates or others who share your professional interests.
e.g. - I make myself go to social events with other physicists, even if my first choice would be to stay home and program/game/read. Help organize and/or participate in outings to see the latest Star Trek movie (or whatever). This is a great way to meet fellow geeks provided that your acquaintances are invited to bring their friends and it will cultivate relationships that will get you invited to other stuff, provided that you...
2.) PRACTICE not being a geeky asshole.
Yes being with people is hard work. PRACTICE being nice to them. Pick a role model that you think is suave and awesome: mine is Captain Picard (yes, I am embarrassed). Right before you roll your eyes and explain in childish terms to your acquaintance the differences between TCP and UDP (and GOD how could ANYONE not know this!) think to yourself: would --insert role model here-- do this?
3.) Go places and do stuff (examples below).
It's so simple but so often overlooked. What to know where I met my girlfriend? I audited a German class *three* years ago at a university. At the time she was in a relationship - *1.5 years ago* I saw her at a bus stop and asked her (in German) if she had been practicing the language. Instant relationship. The take-away message? Invest in your future. Join a book club, join a table top gaming club, go take guitar lessons at a place that does group lessons, join a choir (ok, maybe that's pushing the envelope...but I did it), go to craigslist>groups and see if something there interests you...do SOMETHING to get out and do things you like with others. Keep it up and it will pay off. The biggest dork I know goes to public dance nights every weekend. He found a fellow Linux T-shirt wearing girlfriend there -- and learned how to dance pretty well, to boot.
4.) Wash your clothes, wash yourself, lose a bit of weight, brush your teeth.
Yes, these physical processes matter, whether you want to admit it or not - and if these are things you have failed to do in the past, then the resulting change in your bearing will be noticeable to others.
5.) Be patient.
A relationship isn't something you can pick up at Kroger. It may take time for something to develop. Enjoy whatever events you chose in response to item #3 and allow this enjoyment to be satisfaction enough for you - for the time being. But always keep your eyes open for an opportunity to make an acquaintance into a friend - or a girlfriend! Keep in mind, the more good friends you make, the larger your social cross section becomes. You don't have to be Barack Obama to get a girlfriend - but it sure don't hurt.
Well, that's pretty interesting and I didn't know those things. I am not an expert in neuroscience, but the things you cite as potentially damaging (gaining conscious or functional control of one or several brain waves) seem to me to occur quite often in normal humans that never suffer ill effects. The obvious example might be an experienced meditator. You yourself mentioned a highly intelligent polymath. Intense concentration would probably be another brain state that fits the bill. Yet we aren't warned by the surgeon general that "Concentration may be hazardous to your health" and Tibet is still populated by seemingly normal monks...so I don't yet understand how these brain states would differ from potentially hazardous ones.
If you could provide a link to further information (or journal manuscripts) about potentially damaging brain states of the type you described, I would be very interested to take a look at it.
What!? Ok, you are going to have to explain your reasoning to me. This device works off of EEG technology, which is basically a fancy voltage measurement. To my knowledge the toy isn't exactly pumping signals into your brain. It's my understanding that the "neurofeedback" this toy provides is simply the visual feedback you receive when you make the ball rise.
So, it seems to me that unless you are terrified of voltage meters, and possibly batteries, you probably shouldn't run for the hills when this thing hits the stores.
The Parent's points make about as much sense as saying that auto repairmen need a firm grounding in Thermodynamic Mechanics. What doctors need to know are the facts: DO these drugs interact. Yes or no. Leave the organic chemistry to the MD PhDs. ---- A counter example: An architect builds buildings, which are important, and the quality of them can be a life or death matter. Should all architects be fully versed in Solid State Theory? After all, how will they understand the nature of the very materials that they are building with...?
Not necessarily so. With materials such as CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide) and others, you can "tune" which wavelengths you actually absorb by varying the ratios of the constituent elements. It is possible to deposit such an absorber on a transparent conducting substrate to create a photovoltaic material that is transparent over a range of wavelengths. XsunX, for example, is a company that markets this technology currently. They make their "solar cell windows" from amorphous silicon. Link: http://www.xsunx.com/
You hit the nail on the head, Spork. When someone says that a photovoltaic is, say, 20% efficient (take for example this quote from wikipedia: "Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14-19%"), this figure is a **power conversion efficiency**. i.e. - 5W solar power converted to 1W useful electrical power gives an efficiency of 20%. Therefore, the projected power conversion efficiency of the proposed concentrator/PV system is actually quite low, 6.8%. Solar cells had greater efficiency then this in the 1980s. Whatever the hype, one knows that this system can't possibly be the magic it's creators say it is for the simple fact that the dye-conversion/waveguide process is not optically 100% efficient. Therefore you could put the best solar cells in the world around the periphery of these concentrators and the combined system will have a lower efficiency than if you simply covered the area in solar cells in the first place. Whether this system is economically exciting is another matter...but I wouldn't buy up all of Covalent Solar's stock just yet.;)
Solar cells undergo degradation with light exposure. The degradation is usually proportional to the number of photons incident on the cell. Does this method *shorten* the effective lifetimes of existing solar cells by a factor of 40? Are there cells that exist that this solution is practical for? Do the gains outweigh the costs if I use this system to "upgrade" my solar cell array and end up slashing the array's lifetime by a factor of 40?
You're right. And the observation that an asteroid has a 1/60 chance of hitting the Earth in 2029 isn't news either!! Nor will it be news until the damn thing smashes into us. Hold the presses until then, I say!
Oh...and Rhinos are going extinct!? Bah! That ain't news till it happens either!
Computed escape flux 3*10^6 (molecules)/(cm^2 s).
Hydrogen escape fluxes are two orders of magnitude greater. (source below)
A simple calculation someone may wish to do involving the density of oxygen molecules required for breathing as well as the surface area of the Martian ionosphere can give you a very rough idea of how quickly a magically-induced breathable atmosphere would decay away. It is unclear to me how the density of the atmosphere will effect the M-B speed distribution (considering how effectively the new density will effect light absorption, etc.) so it is also unclear (to me) how this escape rate would evolve with, say, "terraforming".
1997 paper - may be outdated, probably a better source exists
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993GeoRL..20.1747F
Slashdot Mirror
I kinda' stopped reading the article at that sentence. It makes me feel dirty to do so...but you have to draw a line somewhere.
You are wise to realize your current situation is untenable. As a fellow non-socialite I have the following suggestions.
1.) Stick to what you know. Make yourself go on outings with workmates or others who share your professional interests.
e.g. - I make myself go to social events with other physicists, even if my first choice would be to stay home and program/game/read. Help organize and/or participate in outings to see the latest Star Trek movie (or whatever). This is a great way to meet fellow geeks provided that your acquaintances are invited to bring their friends and it will cultivate relationships that will get you invited to other stuff, provided that you...
2.) PRACTICE not being a geeky asshole.
Yes being with people is hard work. PRACTICE being nice to them. Pick a role model that you think is suave and awesome: mine is Captain Picard (yes, I am embarrassed). Right before you roll your eyes and explain in childish terms to your acquaintance the differences between TCP and UDP (and GOD how could ANYONE not know this!) think to yourself: would --insert role model here-- do this?
3.) Go places and do stuff (examples below).
It's so simple but so often overlooked. What to know where I met my girlfriend? I audited a German class *three* years ago at a university. At the time she was in a relationship - *1.5 years ago* I saw her at a bus stop and asked her (in German) if she had been practicing the language. Instant relationship. The take-away message? Invest in your future. Join a book club, join a table top gaming club, go take guitar lessons at a place that does group lessons, join a choir (ok, maybe that's pushing the envelope...but I did it), go to craigslist>groups and see if something there interests you...do SOMETHING to get out and do things you like with others. Keep it up and it will pay off. The biggest dork I know goes to public dance nights every weekend. He found a fellow Linux T-shirt wearing girlfriend there -- and learned how to dance pretty well, to boot.
4.) Wash your clothes, wash yourself, lose a bit of weight, brush your teeth.
Yes, these physical processes matter, whether you want to admit it or not - and if these are things you have failed to do in the past, then the resulting change in your bearing will be noticeable to others.
5.) Be patient.
A relationship isn't something you can pick up at Kroger. It may take time for something to develop. Enjoy whatever events you chose in response to item #3 and allow this enjoyment to be satisfaction enough for you - for the time being. But always keep your eyes open for an opportunity to make an acquaintance into a friend - or a girlfriend! Keep in mind, the more good friends you make, the larger your social cross section becomes. You don't have to be Barack Obama to get a girlfriend - but it sure don't hurt.
Well, that's pretty interesting and I didn't know those things. I am not an expert in neuroscience, but the things you cite as potentially damaging (gaining conscious or functional control of one or several brain waves) seem to me to occur quite often in normal humans that never suffer ill effects. The obvious example might be an experienced meditator. You yourself mentioned a highly intelligent polymath. Intense concentration would probably be another brain state that fits the bill. Yet we aren't warned by the surgeon general that "Concentration may be hazardous to your health" and Tibet is still populated by seemingly normal monks...so I don't yet understand how these brain states would differ from potentially hazardous ones.
If you could provide a link to further information (or journal manuscripts) about potentially damaging brain states of the type you described, I would be very interested to take a look at it.
What!? Ok, you are going to have to explain your reasoning to me. This device works off of EEG technology, which is basically a fancy voltage measurement. To my knowledge the toy isn't exactly pumping signals into your brain. It's my understanding that the "neurofeedback" this toy provides is simply the visual feedback you receive when you make the ball rise. So, it seems to me that unless you are terrified of voltage meters, and possibly batteries, you probably shouldn't run for the hills when this thing hits the stores.
The Parent's points make about as much sense as saying that auto repairmen need a firm grounding in Thermodynamic Mechanics. What doctors need to know are the facts: DO these drugs interact. Yes or no. Leave the organic chemistry to the MD PhDs. ---- A counter example: An architect builds buildings, which are important, and the quality of them can be a life or death matter. Should all architects be fully versed in Solid State Theory? After all, how will they understand the nature of the very materials that they are building with...?
"In other words: they don't have a single clue about where or what the heck this thing is."
Yep. Pretty much sounds like science to me.
Signed, A Scientist
I only look down on people that follow blindly and aren't able to defend their positions. There's nothing respectable about that.
Be careful, not being able to defend one's position does not necessarily equate to following blindly. Some folks are just bad at arguing.
But, in general, I find looking down on people to be poor practice.
Not necessarily so. With materials such as CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide) and others, you can "tune" which wavelengths you actually absorb by varying the ratios of the constituent elements. It is possible to deposit such an absorber on a transparent conducting substrate to create a photovoltaic material that is transparent over a range of wavelengths. XsunX, for example, is a company that markets this technology currently. They make their "solar cell windows" from amorphous silicon. Link: http://www.xsunx.com/
You hit the nail on the head, Spork. When someone says that a photovoltaic is, say, 20% efficient (take for example this quote from wikipedia: "Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14-19%"), this figure is a **power conversion efficiency**. i.e. - 5W solar power converted to 1W useful electrical power gives an efficiency of 20%. Therefore, the projected power conversion efficiency of the proposed concentrator/PV system is actually quite low, 6.8%. Solar cells had greater efficiency then this in the 1980s. Whatever the hype, one knows that this system can't possibly be the magic it's creators say it is for the simple fact that the dye-conversion/waveguide process is not optically 100% efficient. Therefore you could put the best solar cells in the world around the periphery of these concentrators and the combined system will have a lower efficiency than if you simply covered the area in solar cells in the first place. Whether this system is economically exciting is another matter...but I wouldn't buy up all of Covalent Solar's stock just yet. ;)
Solar cells undergo degradation with light exposure. The degradation is usually proportional to the number of photons incident on the cell. Does this method *shorten* the effective lifetimes of existing solar cells by a factor of 40? Are there cells that exist that this solution is practical for? Do the gains outweigh the costs if I use this system to "upgrade" my solar cell array and end up slashing the array's lifetime by a factor of 40?
You're right. And the observation that an asteroid has a 1/60 chance of hitting the Earth in 2029 isn't news either!! Nor will it be news until the damn thing smashes into us. Hold the presses until then, I say! Oh...and Rhinos are going extinct!? Bah! That ain't news till it happens either!
Computed escape flux 3*10^6 (molecules)/(cm^2 s). Hydrogen escape fluxes are two orders of magnitude greater. (source below) A simple calculation someone may wish to do involving the density of oxygen molecules required for breathing as well as the surface area of the Martian ionosphere can give you a very rough idea of how quickly a magically-induced breathable atmosphere would decay away. It is unclear to me how the density of the atmosphere will effect the M-B speed distribution (considering how effectively the new density will effect light absorption, etc.) so it is also unclear (to me) how this escape rate would evolve with, say, "terraforming". 1997 paper - may be outdated, probably a better source exists http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993GeoRL..20.1747F