Funny analogy, but what OP is hinting at is the intuitive notion that all radiation interacts with objects roughly its "size", i.e. wavelength. A better analogy for this would be if a bunch of people, ranging from tiny elves to enormous giants, tried to grab a badger -- the elves would only be able to grab a single hair on it, and the giant could grab the mountain it's sitting on but the badger could escape between his fingers. Only a person of just the right size could actually grab the badger. So, for example, IR interacts with large molecules thus heating them, which is why objects that are just hot enough to glow a little red feel so hot from a distance; UV is much smaller wavelengths, so it tents to break up large molecules (e.g. DNA), thus causing cancer and killing bacteria (essentially acting as poison for them); xrays interact at an atomic level, which is why they are so useful in imaging -- individual atoms block/"refract" them in different ways, creating different patterns (e.g. in xray crystallography); finally, gamma rays are so tiny that they interact with nuclei, and are capable of being absorbed by said nuclei which then become radioactive themselves (i.e. "hold on" to the gamma ray for a while and release the energy after some random period of time), or of breaking off individual protons/neutrons from the nucleus, or even splitting it up. This intuition can get you pretty far, but it doesn't explain everything -- for example, microwaves heat things through an entirely different mechanism, as some people mentioned above.
I almost pissed myself when I heard the music in the trailer for "World's Greatest Dad", because it's used in "It's always sunny in Philadelphia", and that's the show I was thinking about when you mentioned Danny DeVito. The humor in that show is I think based on two things -- one is the standard oafish type where you are just laughing at absurdity. But I think there is also the much darker type of humor you described, the type where all you can do is laugh so you don't cry.
The most frequently submitted joke was:
What’s brown and sticky?
A stick.
This joke was submitted to LaughLab over 300 times. And no-one ever found it
funny.
I found it to be the funniest joke in the document... WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME???
We should instead create a not-a-terrorist-list for the rich and their friends
Makes sense; computer security is moving from a blacklist model to a whitelist one, so why not real-world security? Create a government certification process for people, much like the Apple review process for the App Store (TM, copyright all rights reserved, patent pending), and problem solved!
We all know about 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Introducing: 3 degrees of politics. "Any topic can be connected to petty squabbling about politics in 3 statements".
This. I think the conclusion that any sufficiently advanced civilization is fully "computerized" is inevitable; once you have the technology, there's simply no (rational) reason not to abandon your meatbag and migrate to a more robust and easily maintained container.
Often true, but there are some caveats. If the prof doesn't give out class notes and tests on the lectures, you pretty much have to take notes (usually these are lower-level classes that satisfy basic requirements, to encourage participation). But this also happens in pure math classes; the better profs will either provide typed up lecture notes before class, or scan and post the notes they write during class (when using an overhead projector). But the lazy/old-fashioned ones will just write on the board, and then taking notes is pretty much imperative, considering that in math professors tend not to follow textbooks that closely.
"professor, could you pause for 25 minutes while I peruse 10 different Latex boards to figure out how to create a \lessgtr with symbols both above and below?"
OT: your sig made me LLOL (i.e. literally LOL; patent pending: "A method for constructing an acronym to communicate a highly amused reaction over a textual medium that circumvents the overuse and subsequent loss of impact of the acronym 'LOL'.").
You're absolutely right, but I guess I was talking about a much larger definition of "the basics". E.g. if you could make a robot that is a mediocre soccer player, or waiter, or pilot, etc, then chances are you've done most of the work required to make an exceptional soccer player, or waiter, or pilot, etc.
there's actually a really skinny guy hiding in the "robot". but seriously, it's quite impressive -- might not seem like much now, but the thing about robotics is that getting the basics is the hardest part; once you have that, getting fancy is relatively easy.
Huh, this is the first I'm hearing of the "kissing problem" (nice name!). I'm guessing it comes up because contacts represent the areas of uncertainty?
As a statistician, I know about the theoretical importance of packing numbers. You mention that packings come up in error correcting codes, and I can certainly see why. But from what you said I infer that they are not just used for theoretical analysis, but to actually design codes. Is this true? I don't know much about error correcting codes, but in estimation problems packing/covering arguments are typically used only in theory to establish upper/lower bounds, because there are often much simpler estimators that don't use them explicitly, i.e. even if we could get exact packings/coverings of a space, we would probably not use them in practice for several reasons. Is this not the case in coding?
I never worried about students copying homework from one another. The proportion of a student's grade that came from homework was typically low enough that wouldn't have mattered if every student in the class turned in an identical assignment.
That seems weird to me -- if the end goal is teaching, it would seem to me that cheating on exams would be less damaging than on homework, since students learn almost nothing from taking exams, and do learn a lot from doing homework...
I will guess based on summaries, and aim to err on the side of missing interesting stories rather than reading uninteresting ones; revolutionary approach, huh?
If you are as sick of Apple/Steve Jobs stories as I am, there is only one thing you can do -- vote with your clicks! Resist the temptation to click on the stories and post comments, even if your comment is going to be "I am sick of Apple/Steve Jobs stories." Yes, I know, I'm violating my own advice right now, but I though it was worth it to get this message out. From now on, I will in no way interact with any Slashdot story about Apple or Jobs, unless it is truly interesting.
This is simply false, all of it. 1) the "critical review" you get by publishing in mass media may be honest eventually, but with high probability there will be an initial phase of sensationalism and media panic that may last anywhere from weeks to years (e.g. see MMR vaccine controversy). 2) your claim about the failure of the peer review process is an extremely strong one, and you make it without presenting any sort of evidence; simply put, you're "full of shit", as they'd say. If you do have such evidence, I'd love to see it; but at least within the scientific fields I'm familiar with, the peer review process is alive and well. Good ideas are recognized, mistakes are discovered, progress is made. Simple as that.
Let's get something straight -- she is not crazy, she is a MEDIA WHORE. Just like Andrew Wakefield before her, and many others. If she were crazy, I could just shrug my shoulders and move on. But this is sooo much worse than that -- a calculated, cold-hearted misinformation campaign that is designed to use irrational fears in parents to her advantage, most likely causing a lot of harm to children in the process.
There aren't many news stories that get me angry; this is one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny analogy, but what OP is hinting at is the intuitive notion that all radiation interacts with objects roughly its "size", i.e. wavelength. A better analogy for this would be if a bunch of people, ranging from tiny elves to enormous giants, tried to grab a badger -- the elves would only be able to grab a single hair on it, and the giant could grab the mountain it's sitting on but the badger could escape between his fingers. Only a person of just the right size could actually grab the badger. So, for example, IR interacts with large molecules thus heating them, which is why objects that are just hot enough to glow a little red feel so hot from a distance; UV is much smaller wavelengths, so it tents to break up large molecules (e.g. DNA), thus causing cancer and killing bacteria (essentially acting as poison for them); xrays interact at an atomic level, which is why they are so useful in imaging -- individual atoms block/"refract" them in different ways, creating different patterns (e.g. in xray crystallography); finally, gamma rays are so tiny that they interact with nuclei, and are capable of being absorbed by said nuclei which then become radioactive themselves (i.e. "hold on" to the gamma ray for a while and release the energy after some random period of time), or of breaking off individual protons/neutrons from the nucleus, or even splitting it up. This intuition can get you pretty far, but it doesn't explain everything -- for example, microwaves heat things through an entirely different mechanism, as some people mentioned above.
I almost pissed myself when I heard the music in the trailer for "World's Greatest Dad", because it's used in "It's always sunny in Philadelphia", and that's the show I was thinking about when you mentioned Danny DeVito. The humor in that show is I think based on two things -- one is the standard oafish type where you are just laughing at absurdity. But I think there is also the much darker type of humor you described, the type where all you can do is laugh so you don't cry.
So yeah, funny coincidences...
The most frequently submitted joke was: What’s brown and sticky? A stick.
This joke was submitted to LaughLab over 300 times. And no-one ever found it funny.
I found it to be the funniest joke in the document... WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME???
We should instead create a not-a-terrorist-list for the rich and their friends
Makes sense; computer security is moving from a blacklist model to a whitelist one, so why not real-world security? Create a government certification process for people, much like the Apple review process for the App Store (TM, copyright all rights reserved, patent pending), and problem solved!
We all know about 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Introducing: 3 degrees of politics. "Any topic can be connected to petty squabbling about politics in 3 statements".
Didn't we just have this discussion? Not that I disagree, but... Yeah.
Agreed. Also I think Bob is just a super-ironic, hence by definition misunderstood, comedian. I mean, nobody is that stupid, right? Right?
Quite possibly the funniest /. comment I've ever read...
This. I think the conclusion that any sufficiently advanced civilization is fully "computerized" is inevitable; once you have the technology, there's simply no (rational) reason not to abandon your meatbag and migrate to a more robust and easily maintained container.
Uhh, no you didn't -- as soon as you posted, your mod was cancelled...
EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE
slashdot filter doesn't get sci fi references... i am disappoint.
The way you ended that sentence broke my brain, you bastard!
Often true, but there are some caveats. If the prof doesn't give out class notes and tests on the lectures, you pretty much have to take notes (usually these are lower-level classes that satisfy basic requirements, to encourage participation). But this also happens in pure math classes; the better profs will either provide typed up lecture notes before class, or scan and post the notes they write during class (when using an overhead projector). But the lazy/old-fashioned ones will just write on the board, and then taking notes is pretty much imperative, considering that in math professors tend not to follow textbooks that closely.
"professor, could you pause for 25 minutes while I peruse 10 different Latex boards to figure out how to create a \lessgtr with symbols both above and below?"
OT: your sig made me LLOL (i.e. literally LOL; patent pending: "A method for constructing an acronym to communicate a highly amused reaction over a textual medium that circumvents the overuse and subsequent loss of impact of the acronym 'LOL'.").
You're absolutely right, but I guess I was talking about a much larger definition of "the basics". E.g. if you could make a robot that is a mediocre soccer player, or waiter, or pilot, etc, then chances are you've done most of the work required to make an exceptional soccer player, or waiter, or pilot, etc.
there's actually a really skinny guy hiding in the "robot". but seriously, it's quite impressive -- might not seem like much now, but the thing about robotics is that getting the basics is the hardest part; once you have that, getting fancy is relatively easy.
Huh, this is the first I'm hearing of the "kissing problem" (nice name!). I'm guessing it comes up because contacts represent the areas of uncertainty?
As a statistician, I know about the theoretical importance of packing numbers. You mention that packings come up in error correcting codes, and I can certainly see why. But from what you said I infer that they are not just used for theoretical analysis, but to actually design codes. Is this true? I don't know much about error correcting codes, but in estimation problems packing/covering arguments are typically used only in theory to establish upper/lower bounds, because there are often much simpler estimators that don't use them explicitly, i.e. even if we could get exact packings/coverings of a space, we would probably not use them in practice for several reasons. Is this not the case in coding?
I never worried about students copying homework from one another. The proportion of a student's grade that came from homework was typically low enough that wouldn't have mattered if every student in the class turned in an identical assignment.
That seems weird to me -- if the end goal is teaching, it would seem to me that cheating on exams would be less damaging than on homework, since students learn almost nothing from taking exams, and do learn a lot from doing homework...
I love this comment. Carlin would approve, I think.
I will guess based on summaries, and aim to err on the side of missing interesting stories rather than reading uninteresting ones; revolutionary approach, huh?
If you are as sick of Apple/Steve Jobs stories as I am, there is only one thing you can do -- vote with your clicks! Resist the temptation to click on the stories and post comments, even if your comment is going to be "I am sick of Apple/Steve Jobs stories." Yes, I know, I'm violating my own advice right now, but I though it was worth it to get this message out. From now on, I will in no way interact with any Slashdot story about Apple or Jobs, unless it is truly interesting.
This is simply false, all of it. 1) the "critical review" you get by publishing in mass media may be honest eventually, but with high probability there will be an initial phase of sensationalism and media panic that may last anywhere from weeks to years (e.g. see MMR vaccine controversy). 2) your claim about the failure of the peer review process is an extremely strong one, and you make it without presenting any sort of evidence; simply put, you're "full of shit", as they'd say. If you do have such evidence, I'd love to see it; but at least within the scientific fields I'm familiar with, the peer review process is alive and well. Good ideas are recognized, mistakes are discovered, progress is made. Simple as that.
Let's get something straight -- she is not crazy, she is a MEDIA WHORE. Just like Andrew Wakefield before her, and many others. If she were crazy, I could just shrug my shoulders and move on. But this is sooo much worse than that -- a calculated, cold-hearted misinformation campaign that is designed to use irrational fears in parents to her advantage, most likely causing a lot of harm to children in the process.
There aren't many news stories that get me angry; this is one of them.