When I read things like this I have to wonder if there aint uses for fusion beyond the current power station paradigm.
The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is often used as a neutron source for various atomic experiments. Info
And how about fusion rockets?
Meet Project Daedalus. While it doesn't use anything as low powered as sonofusion, it is a true fusion rocket. The idea is sound, but I'm afraid that the technology is still beyond us. Or perhaps more precisely, there's no good lab to test a ship like this. It's really only useful for in-space work, and we still have almost zero space construction ability. Not to mention that Orion would be a bit more practical in the short term.
None the less, we have people thinking about this. That way someone will be able to use the designs in the future instead of reinventing everything from scratch.:-)
*grin* Hey, I'm up late thinking. Slashdot just happens to be where I decide to think "out loud". It didn't take long to answer my own question and find that my understanding was correct. (The strong nuclear force is the source of that "little extra" energy.)
Of course, if I wasn't simply running off at the mouth from tiredness, I might have written my post a little better, and figured out my own answers before posting. But what would be the fun in that?;-)
Besides, the high energy physicists always have *something* very interesting to say that I hadn't considered.
The parent comment sounds similar to a lot of other myopic things people have said that turned out to be wrong,
Not at all. For example, I'm up this late considering thought experiments about the speed of light and superluminal velocities. The problem with the strict interpretation of Relativity is that Relativity states that we're simply changing the direction of our 4 dimensional vector when we "accelerate" instead of actually lengthening that vector. The question is, does a method exist through which that vector can be lengthened? Certainly, quantum tunneling suggests that such lengthening must be possible!
But I digress.
It's very important to understand one's limitations when trying to develop something from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps future research will find a way of making tabletop fusion work in an energy positive fashion, but for now the physics say that it's a lose-lose situation. The efficiency (or should I say inefficiency) of forcefully fusing atoms through electromagnetic or particle wave methods is simply going to eat up far more than any potential gains that may be achieved. Gravity is a natural compression that happens for free in Star Fusion. That's what makes it possible.
So for right here and now, tabletop fusion simply isn't feasible. Which isn't to say that ITER won't work. It's possible that it would work in an energy positive manner. The problem is, will it produce sufficient energy when compared with existing methods? Answering that is very much a matter of scale. The larger the fusion engine, the less chance of error in targeting the high energy particles.
Fission naturally occurs at tabletop sizes. Fusion OTOH, is simply not something that naturally occurs at those sizes. At least not in an energy positive fashion. (Something like sonofusion is more or less just "noise" than a serious amount of energy output.)
Of course cars running on electrolysed water, that make it from the energy they produce by burning the hydrogen from said water won't work, at least until we manage to get a perpetual motion machine working.
Yes, that was my point.:-)
But does any of that mean fusion is bound to fail? A lot of people who are a whole lot more knowledgable than I am don't think so.
I certainly agree that fusion can work. My point is that fusion doesn't (and really can't) work on small scales. You give it X amount of energy and you get back out X plus a small addition. The problem is that addition is not usually sufficient to maintain the reaction in a power positive fashion. To do that, you need some way for a high enough percentage of the system to constantly undergo fusion. Gravity is one way of doing that. Adding energy from an external source is the other. So far, no one has figured out how to make the latter form work in an energy positive fashion.
Simple answer - hydrogen fused to helium has a "little bit left over" - this is the energy released.
My question was, where does that "little bit left over" come from? You still have all the original particles in the system. The energy that was used to "squeeze" the particles together is then imparted on the remaining atoms/free particles.
So I went to look it up on Wikipedia, and it gave me an answer that was basically the same as I suggested:
"The energy released in most nuclear reactions is much larger than that for chemical reactions, because the binding energy that glues a nucleus together is far greater than the energy that holds electrons to a nucleus."
Source
With the rapid increases in solar and wind and geothermal and hot fractured rock and wave/water energy anyone searching for fusion as a way to provide power is just searching for a solution without a problem.
Really? Have you done the equations for how powerful those methods are? Geothermal is probably the most promising, but the others simply don't generate that much juice. For example, the most powerful windmill in existence can climb to about 10 megawatts. In comparison, we've got quite a few nuclear plants up in the Gigawatt range.
Basically, none of these "alternate energy technologies" has sufficient power density to be a replacement for existing powerplant technologies. I realize that many people are wowed by the impressive size of some of the solar and wind farms, but it's very important to put them into perspective. As power density goes, they suck in comparison to a real powerplant. As power production goes, they simply don't have enough power generation area to produce an output similar to that of existing plants.
Can I make a suggestion on how to produce energy positive fusion?
Step 1: Gather a LOT of hydrogen. A few hundred billion tonnes should do it. Step 2: Put all the hydrogen together in one place. Step 3: Wait for the gravitational effects to compress the hydrogen. Step 4: Enjoy your new self-sustaining fusion reactor as the compressed hydrogen begins to trigger fusion events.
See? Isn't that easy?;-)
Seriously, the problem here is that you're required to input a tremendous amount of force to overcome the nuclear bonds that hold the atoms together. As long as you have to put that force into the system, you're not going to get surplus energy out of the system. Simple physics. You can't get more energy out of a reaction than it takes to reverse it. The same reason why hydrogen cars that run on electrolyzed water don't work.
The reason why stars work is that they are using fusion as a method of harnessing another energy source in the Universe: Gravity.
As gravity crams the atoms together, eventually the atomic bonds are overcome and some of that gravitational energy is released as high energy particles. That's why tabletop fusion *can't* produce surplus energy.
So if that's the case, why does nuclear fission work? The answer to that is quite simple. The common conception of creating nuclear fission by destroying the atomic bonds is wrong. i.e. We don't "smash" anything to produce energy positive fission. Rather, we take a radioisotope that is already in an unstable condition due to a misbalancing of protons to neutrons, and/or a tremendous atomic weight. We then add particles to those atoms until the atom becomes heavy enough to overcome the atomic bonds. The strong nuclear force holding the atom together is then converted to kinetic energy as the atom disintegrates.
There's just one thing that bothers me, though. Why does a Hydrogen Bomb produce far more energy in the fusion phase than is put in during the fission phase? My only guess is that the extra energy is coming from the energy released by the nuclear bonds during the forceful disintegration of the atom. Any physics majors care to chime in?
And even if public schools teach people to be submisive, there is a place for that in society. One should be submisive to superiors if one wants to keep a job. Yes, boldness is a good thing in many contexts, but so is submissiveness.
You'd be amazed. Surprisingly, everyone likes me *because* they can count on me to have keen questions when they are solicited in meetings. I have no compunctions about asking the CEO of the company if things are going down the tubes or not. Believe it or not, such boldness does command respect. (Maybe life really does follow Office Space, eh?) The key is to understand your position. If your opinion was solicited, don't be shy about giving it! Then again, I'm not even sure that many of my peers know how to express their concerns. The fact that I handle it for them is a very important thing to them. It also emboldens them to ask their own questions.
Submissiveness is not actually what you want. An understanding of how to be obedient, is.:-)
It amazes me how few people payed any attention to the study I presented. There is no social problem. What there is, is two different paths children can grow up in. There's the "keep your head down, young man" public school, and there's the "be bold, ask questions, challenge the system!" path of home schooling. The two react violently at younger ages, but can adapt quite well to each other as teenagers and adults.
Let me put it this way. Are we socializing right now? Congratulations then, you've just socialized with a home schooler!
One of these kids tried to explain to me that school districts cannot have any kind of dress code, because it violates the first amendment of the Constitution. When I told him that several Supreme Court decisions contradicted his statement, he flew off into a rage.
Are you sure you're not exagerating about "rage"? More likely, I'd believe that he attempted to continue arguing the point with you. If he actually responded with "rage", then he would be an atypical home schooler. More likely such rage would have been produced by his individual personality than his background.
Home schoolers defintitely tend to be more argumentatitve, though. They absorb a lot of information and tend to be very eager to test it out in the real world. What you're seeing is what happens when a great deal of knowledge is combined with immaturity. The assumption is made by the child that the world works entirely on their logic, and must be taught that not everything is a cut and dry matter. As the child matures, you'll see him go through many stages of argumentativeness (is that a word?) where he learns to be just a bit more civil every time. By the time he reaches adult-hood (or soon there-after), I'm sure you'll see the child acting in a very equitable manner.
Still, even as an adult, it's likely that a home schooler will act different than his peers. His education and reenforcement will place him in a position of boldness whereby he will attempt to rise quickly in whatever position he choses. The question is, is that a bad thing?
Kids who go to public (and even private!) schools are taught from a very young age to keep their heads down and not disturb things too much. That training often carries through there entire life. As a result, they are poorly suited to positions that require them to take a proactive stance. Rather, many of them actually begin to accept whatever they are told, and whatever cards life gives them. Is that what we want? Generations of Sheeple?
And that "teacher unit" will in the majority of cases not be competent to teach every subject at the high school level.
That's why it's very important to pick the proper curriculum. Public school books expect the teacher to provide most of the information verbally. In many of the curriculums designed for home schoolers, the books provide sufficient information to teach the child and allow the parent to understand and help the child if needed.
homeschooling parents also have a tendency to overestimate their child's desire to spend time with them.
I actually didn't see my mother very much. Most of our work was done in the morning, and she'd correct the work and perform one-on-one sessions in the afternoon. If all went well, we could actually be done with our schoolwork within five hours of work.
Finally, you should at least recognize that a large majority of homeschooling is done for religious reasons.
Irrelevant. If it produces better results as a whole, it doesn't matter what the reasons behind the practice are.
No, the studies may imply that ON AVERAGE home schoolers outperform publicly educated peers, but that's different than the absolute terms you're phrasing it in.... Your source is so biased as to completely invalidate any assertion they make.
Alright, let's try what you refer to as "[A] source [that] is definitely better.":
MAJOR FINDINGS - ACHIEVEMENT Almost 25% of home school students were enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools.
Home school student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) were well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students.
On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests.
Students who had been home schooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs.
There were no meaningful differences in achievement by gender, whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether a parent held a state issued teaching certificate. --- Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the home school students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for home school students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time home school students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts.
The results are consistent with previous studies of the achievement of home school students.Source
I dare you to find a study that contradicts these results.
This source is definitely better, but still a little suspect, considering education studies as an academic field is notorious for it's shoddy research methodology.
Arguable, perhaps, but I'd be very interested if you could produce studies showing the opposite. I think you'll find that *all* studies done (no matter by whom) show that Home Schooling has shown superior performance in all areas of children's lives.
What makes you think that most parents are qualified to be teachers? In all subjects?
Nothing. That's why you have to pick a good curriculum. The Beka system I used is often referred to as "Self-Teaching", because most of the teaching is contained within the books, not the parent's head. And if a child cannot understand something (even at a high school level), the explanation is usually more than sufficient for an adult.
That being said, it's always up to the parents to decide if home schooling will work for them. It generally seems to work well for a lot of families, but if you don't feel up to it, check the alternatives. At the very least, there are quite a few private schools that are very affordable. Especially (dare I say it on Slashdot?) schools run by local Churches. Not all of them are so great (I've seen a few I wouldn't be caught dead sending my child to), but there are enough to where you can get your child a good education on a budget.
Plus, the school bus will still have to run the same route anyway, using essentially the same fuel, regardless of whether the child is on the bus or not.
You're forgetting that the route is determined by which children need to be picked up. If the child is near other school children, then your point holds. If the bus actually has to add to its route to pick up the child, then fuel can be saved through each child who home schools.
You know -- the 90% of the parents of the students in your public school, who already don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut if Johnny can read, as long as he's out of their hair for 8 hours a day.
It's not so simple to "fake" home schooling. According to the laws in many states, you MUST report the attendence and cirriculum of your children to the State. And if anyone reports you for any reason, you may find a truancy officer knocking on your door, wanting to check on your records and teaching ability.
Plus, there is no way to get a high-school degree without knowing at least a minimum amount. Since home schools are not accredited, the student is required to take the GED and/or HSED test to prove his/her competence. The GED isn't TOO hard, but it's sufficient to ensure an education. However, the HSED supplement test is required if you wish to claim a TRUE high school diploma. (GEDs kind of have a stigma attached to them of kids who flunked out and barely scraped by later in life.) I personally took the complete HSED test and scored exceptionally well.
Then there's the case of the ACT/SAT scores. Right now home schoolers are in the upper bracket of these scores. If the average score of a home schooler started dropping on these tests, you can be sure that people would start taking notice.
No, I think the question he's trying to ask is, "How do we home school without home schooling?"
And the answer is, "Just home school the child. The result will be that your child will do *better* acedemically and socially."
The downside is that home schooling isn't for everyone. I was home schooled, but my wife doesn't feel up to the challenge. So we send our kids to a private school. Even then, it was VERY difficult finding a school that was both affordable and met the needs of our child.
So my question is, how can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts?
Just home school. Through this mircale of modern technology, kids can be better taught than through any other method known to man! Not to mention that your child will receive his very own "teacher unit" who just happens to also be related to the child! A Win-Win situation for all!
Joking aside, Home Schooling is a very good option, especially in rural areas where familys can better afford to only have one parent working. The results of various studies show that the home schoolers easily outperform their publically educated peers, and that the social aspect isn't as big of an issue as was once feared.
From Wikipedia (which actually links to quite a few more sources):
"The academic effectiveness of homeschooling is largely a settled issue. Numerous studies have confirmed the academic integrity of home education programs, demonstrating that average homeschoolers outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. Moreover, the performance gaps between minorities and gender that plague public schools are virtually non-existent amongst homeschooled students. Source"
---
"According to the findings, children who were schooled at home 'gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children.'
"The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that 'insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children.'" Source
Technology only bolsters the abilities of home schoolers. Where as a home schooler of my generation had to be satified with the curriculum, materials the parents could afford, and the local library (an excellent source itself), modern school children can find information on virtually ANY issue simply by checking the Internet. Also, whereas labs done by my generation had to be performed by video tape, the modern generation is capable of actually video conferencing with a lab instructor for more precise education.
Oh, so that makes it OK then? If Microsoft stole an idea from someone else which then accounts for 99% of MSFT's revenue, you would feel OK about that too?
Is it ok? Yes. Even when Microsoft does it. Microsoft's problem is that they use their juggernaut might to make an inferior copy, then crush the competition. i.e. They're playing dirty. I'd think a lot less of Google if they made inferior copies, then crushed their competitors. But they don't. Google saw a good idea, but developed it into a very different direction. A bit like, "I hear that 3D graphics are the next greatest thing!" You wouldn't then complain about that person developing their own 3D engine, would you?
Compare that to Microsoft who pre-announced "Windows" just to make sure that VisiOn couldn't capture ANY of the market share. And when I say "pre-announced", I mean that they got wind of what VisiOn was doing, then pretended that they had a product nearly ready for delivery!
Hey, don't blame Microsoft because Spyglass and Digital made bad deals
I do blame Microsoft. SpyGlass's contract explicity stated that they would get royalties for the sale of the browser. Microsoft, however, pulled a fast one by bundling it with the OS (which they made a profit off of!) then paying SpyGlass nothing! It was nothing more than a dirty loophole, and the courts agreed. (Even though SpyGlass still walked away with little.)
Digital also spent considerable money to develop the next generation of VAX. Microsoft then stole the entire development out from under them, profiting on Digital's dime! What they did was outright illegal, yet Microsoft felt no compunctions about screwing over Digital in the settlement. (Suuurrree, we'll port to Alpha. *itllbeuselessbutyouwontknowthat*)
froogles and gmail existed before Google ever thought of them and once Google thought of those names, it tried to force existing owners to give them in addition to their first borns and up
In other words, Scientists hope to find clues to abiogenesis from completely alien life.
Unfortunately, there's a good chance that "life on Mars" is just "life on Earth that migrated to Mars". Many years ago, I remember listening to a scientist who was absolutely certain that we'd find microscopic life on Mars. His reasoning was that with all the ejecta shot into space from Asteroids and other natural phenomena, there *must* be some Earth life that managed to make it to Mars.
Too bad. Seems you're missing out on the Masterpiece that is Batman Begins. If you plan to see one other movie this year, make it Batman Begins! You will not be disappointed!
I realize that's a joke, but I'm afraid that it doesn't quite work that way. Movie pirates often don't pirate things because they really want the individual thing, they pirate them because they can. It's a bit of a gmae to them. i.e. Who can end up with the most stuff. Perhaps the most indicitive signs of this game were the rooms in DirectConnect (since replaced with DC++) that required you to have 40 to 100 GIGS of data shared. If you failed their test, a bot would auto-kick you.
I wouldn't be surprised if many pirates never use/watch the stuff they get. It's all just a game. A scavanger hunt, if you will. Whoever gets the most stuff "wins". The funny part is that they may just "win" a call from the **AA or law enforcement. What a prize.:-/
Google's main product, i.e. the thing that allowed them to make 99% of its revenue, is sponsored search - something they "stole" from Overture (now Yahoo!) which they settled by paying $$$ to Yahoo.
Google never actually "stole" anything more than the idea. And their implementation was amazingly different. Microsoft, OTOH, actually used code directly from BG's University. Not to mention their licensing deal with Spyglass that had a small maintenence payment in exchange for royalties on the Internet Explorer sales. (Guess how much Spyglass collected in royalties?) Or the outright theft of the VAX design for the NT kernel. (Which Digital then settled in exchange for NT being ported to the Alpha. Guess how much good that did Digital?)
They also also trying hard to "steal" various trademark such as googles.com, froogles.com, and gmail.com through lawsuits too.
Uh, yeah. Whatever you say. Maybe, just maybe, Google is execising the law to get rid of scammers? Wait, that doesn't sound evil(tm) enough.
Lastly, it is well known that Google has made a number of purchases that are now products e.g.Picasa.
What's you're point? No one is annoyed at the very idea of acquisitions, just that Microsoft plays dirty to get those acquisitions, plus that Microsoft has never actually invented anything in-house. Google has invented plenty, and uses their acquisitions as a means of bolstering their business. e.g. Blogger.com provides a method through which Google can advertise their adsense program to professional bloggers. That's simply not what Microsoft does. Microsoft buys, steals, or outright blocks the next big thing so that all the money ends up in their coffers. Have you forgotten Microsoft's threats against Netscape, or their early announcement tactics against VisiOn?
Mmm... that's why I suggested moving Bookmarks and the like into a DBFS. In doing so, the user gain the power to organize and search on his data in ways that were previously impossible. Just imagine if your bookmarks automatically attached the meta-data about themselves (based on the website). You could then search for "humor" and find a list of everything you thought was funny enough to bookmark!
Recheck your history. For example, the creators of QDOS (the origin of MS-DOS) sued Microsoft because of the relatively low payment they received. Other business deals were equally frowned upon, but Microsoft was often in a good legal position to prevent anyone from doing anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read things like this I have to wonder if there aint uses for fusion beyond the current power station paradigm.
:-)
The Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor is often used as a neutron source for various atomic experiments. Info
And how about fusion rockets?
Meet Project Daedalus. While it doesn't use anything as low powered as sonofusion, it is a true fusion rocket. The idea is sound, but I'm afraid that the technology is still beyond us. Or perhaps more precisely, there's no good lab to test a ship like this. It's really only useful for in-space work, and we still have almost zero space construction ability. Not to mention that Orion would be a bit more practical in the short term.
None the less, we have people thinking about this. That way someone will be able to use the designs in the future instead of reinventing everything from scratch.
*grin* Hey, I'm up late thinking. Slashdot just happens to be where I decide to think "out loud". It didn't take long to answer my own question and find that my understanding was correct. (The strong nuclear force is the source of that "little extra" energy.)
;-)
Of course, if I wasn't simply running off at the mouth from tiredness, I might have written my post a little better, and figured out my own answers before posting. But what would be the fun in that?
Besides, the high energy physicists always have *something* very interesting to say that I hadn't considered.
The parent comment sounds similar to a lot of other myopic things people have said that turned out to be wrong,
Not at all. For example, I'm up this late considering thought experiments about the speed of light and superluminal velocities. The problem with the strict interpretation of Relativity is that Relativity states that we're simply changing the direction of our 4 dimensional vector when we "accelerate" instead of actually lengthening that vector. The question is, does a method exist through which that vector can be lengthened? Certainly, quantum tunneling suggests that such lengthening must be possible!
But I digress.
It's very important to understand one's limitations when trying to develop something from an engineering standpoint. Perhaps future research will find a way of making tabletop fusion work in an energy positive fashion, but for now the physics say that it's a lose-lose situation. The efficiency (or should I say inefficiency) of forcefully fusing atoms through electromagnetic or particle wave methods is simply going to eat up far more than any potential gains that may be achieved. Gravity is a natural compression that happens for free in Star Fusion. That's what makes it possible.
So for right here and now, tabletop fusion simply isn't feasible. Which isn't to say that ITER won't work. It's possible that it would work in an energy positive manner. The problem is, will it produce sufficient energy when compared with existing methods? Answering that is very much a matter of scale. The larger the fusion engine, the less chance of error in targeting the high energy particles.
Fission naturally occurs at tabletop sizes. Fusion OTOH, is simply not something that naturally occurs at those sizes. At least not in an energy positive fashion. (Something like sonofusion is more or less just "noise" than a serious amount of energy output.)
Of course cars running on electrolysed water, that make it from the energy they produce by burning the hydrogen from said water won't work, at least until we manage to get a perpetual motion machine working.
:-)
Yes, that was my point.
But does any of that mean fusion is bound to fail? A lot of people who are a whole lot more knowledgable than I am don't think so.
I certainly agree that fusion can work. My point is that fusion doesn't (and really can't) work on small scales. You give it X amount of energy and you get back out X plus a small addition. The problem is that addition is not usually sufficient to maintain the reaction in a power positive fashion. To do that, you need some way for a high enough percentage of the system to constantly undergo fusion. Gravity is one way of doing that. Adding energy from an external source is the other. So far, no one has figured out how to make the latter form work in an energy positive fashion.
My question was, where does that "little bit left over" come from? You still have all the original particles in the system. The energy that was used to "squeeze" the particles together is then imparted on the remaining atoms/free particles.
So I went to look it up on Wikipedia, and it gave me an answer that was basically the same as I suggested:
With the rapid increases in solar and wind and geothermal and hot fractured rock and wave/water energy anyone searching for fusion as a way to provide power is just searching for a solution without a problem.
Really? Have you done the equations for how powerful those methods are? Geothermal is probably the most promising, but the others simply don't generate that much juice. For example, the most powerful windmill in existence can climb to about 10 megawatts. In comparison, we've got quite a few nuclear plants up in the Gigawatt range.
Basically, none of these "alternate energy technologies" has sufficient power density to be a replacement for existing powerplant technologies. I realize that many people are wowed by the impressive size of some of the solar and wind farms, but it's very important to put them into perspective. As power density goes, they suck in comparison to a real powerplant. As power production goes, they simply don't have enough power generation area to produce an output similar to that of existing plants.
Can I make a suggestion on how to produce energy positive fusion?
;-)
Step 1: Gather a LOT of hydrogen. A few hundred billion tonnes should do it.
Step 2: Put all the hydrogen together in one place.
Step 3: Wait for the gravitational effects to compress the hydrogen.
Step 4: Enjoy your new self-sustaining fusion reactor as the compressed hydrogen begins to trigger fusion events.
See? Isn't that easy?
Seriously, the problem here is that you're required to input a tremendous amount of force to overcome the nuclear bonds that hold the atoms together. As long as you have to put that force into the system, you're not going to get surplus energy out of the system. Simple physics. You can't get more energy out of a reaction than it takes to reverse it. The same reason why hydrogen cars that run on electrolyzed water don't work.
The reason why stars work is that they are using fusion as a method of harnessing another energy source in the Universe: Gravity.
As gravity crams the atoms together, eventually the atomic bonds are overcome and some of that gravitational energy is released as high energy particles. That's why tabletop fusion *can't* produce surplus energy.
So if that's the case, why does nuclear fission work? The answer to that is quite simple. The common conception of creating nuclear fission by destroying the atomic bonds is wrong. i.e. We don't "smash" anything to produce energy positive fission. Rather, we take a radioisotope that is already in an unstable condition due to a misbalancing of protons to neutrons, and/or a tremendous atomic weight. We then add particles to those atoms until the atom becomes heavy enough to overcome the atomic bonds. The strong nuclear force holding the atom together is then converted to kinetic energy as the atom disintegrates.
There's just one thing that bothers me, though. Why does a Hydrogen Bomb produce far more energy in the fusion phase than is put in during the fission phase? My only guess is that the extra energy is coming from the energy released by the nuclear bonds during the forceful disintegration of the atom. Any physics majors care to chime in?
And even if public schools teach people to be submisive, there is a place for that in society. One should be submisive to superiors if one wants to keep a job. Yes, boldness is a good thing in many contexts, but so is submissiveness.
:-)
You'd be amazed. Surprisingly, everyone likes me *because* they can count on me to have keen questions when they are solicited in meetings. I have no compunctions about asking the CEO of the company if things are going down the tubes or not. Believe it or not, such boldness does command respect. (Maybe life really does follow Office Space, eh?) The key is to understand your position. If your opinion was solicited, don't be shy about giving it! Then again, I'm not even sure that many of my peers know how to express their concerns. The fact that I handle it for them is a very important thing to them. It also emboldens them to ask their own questions.
Submissiveness is not actually what you want. An understanding of how to be obedient, is.
It amazes me how few people payed any attention to the study I presented. There is no social problem. What there is, is two different paths children can grow up in. There's the "keep your head down, young man" public school, and there's the "be bold, ask questions, challenge the system!" path of home schooling. The two react violently at younger ages, but can adapt quite well to each other as teenagers and adults.
Let me put it this way. Are we socializing right now? Congratulations then, you've just socialized with a home schooler!
One of these kids tried to explain to me that school districts cannot have any kind of dress code, because it violates the first amendment of the Constitution. When I told him that several Supreme Court decisions contradicted his statement, he flew off into a rage.
Are you sure you're not exagerating about "rage"? More likely, I'd believe that he attempted to continue arguing the point with you. If he actually responded with "rage", then he would be an atypical home schooler. More likely such rage would have been produced by his individual personality than his background.
Home schoolers defintitely tend to be more argumentatitve, though. They absorb a lot of information and tend to be very eager to test it out in the real world. What you're seeing is what happens when a great deal of knowledge is combined with immaturity. The assumption is made by the child that the world works entirely on their logic, and must be taught that not everything is a cut and dry matter. As the child matures, you'll see him go through many stages of argumentativeness (is that a word?) where he learns to be just a bit more civil every time. By the time he reaches adult-hood (or soon there-after), I'm sure you'll see the child acting in a very equitable manner.
Still, even as an adult, it's likely that a home schooler will act different than his peers. His education and reenforcement will place him in a position of boldness whereby he will attempt to rise quickly in whatever position he choses. The question is, is that a bad thing?
Kids who go to public (and even private!) schools are taught from a very young age to keep their heads down and not disturb things too much. That training often carries through there entire life. As a result, they are poorly suited to positions that require them to take a proactive stance. Rather, many of them actually begin to accept whatever they are told, and whatever cards life gives them. Is that what we want? Generations of Sheeple?
1 cord of wood can heat a very large home for an entire year.
;-)
My parents had a wood stove for heating.
And that "teacher unit" will in the majority of cases not be competent to teach every subject at the high school level.
...
That's why it's very important to pick the proper curriculum. Public school books expect the teacher to provide most of the information verbally. In many of the curriculums designed for home schoolers, the books provide sufficient information to teach the child and allow the parent to understand and help the child if needed.
homeschooling parents also have a tendency to overestimate their child's desire to spend time with them.
I actually didn't see my mother very much. Most of our work was done in the morning, and she'd correct the work and perform one-on-one sessions in the afternoon. If all went well, we could actually be done with our schoolwork within five hours of work.
Finally, you should at least recognize that a large majority of homeschooling is done for religious reasons.
Irrelevant. If it produces better results as a whole, it doesn't matter what the reasons behind the practice are.
No, the studies may imply that ON AVERAGE home schoolers outperform publicly educated peers, but that's different than the absolute terms you're phrasing it in.
Your source is so biased as to completely invalidate any assertion they make.
Alright, let's try what you refer to as "[A] source [that] is definitely better.":
MAJOR FINDINGS - ACHIEVEMENT
Almost 25% of home school students were enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools.
Home school student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) were well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students.
On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests.
Students who had been home schooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs.
There were no meaningful differences in achievement by gender, whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether a parent held a state issued teaching certificate.
---
Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the home school students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for home school students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time home school students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts.
The results are consistent with previous studies of the achievement of home school students. Source
I dare you to find a study that contradicts these results.
This source is definitely better, but still a little suspect, considering education studies as an academic field is notorious for it's shoddy research methodology.
Arguable, perhaps, but I'd be very interested if you could produce studies showing the opposite. I think you'll find that *all* studies done (no matter by whom) show that Home Schooling has shown superior performance in all areas of children's lives.
What makes you think that most parents are qualified to be teachers? In all subjects?
Nothing. That's why you have to pick a good curriculum. The Beka system I used is often referred to as "Self-Teaching", because most of the teaching is contained within the books, not the parent's head. And if a child cannot understand something (even at a high school level), the explanation is usually more than sufficient for an adult.
That being said, it's always up to the parents to decide if home schooling will work for them. It generally seems to work well for a lot of families, but if you don't feel up to it, check the alternatives. At the very least, there are quite a few private schools that are very affordable. Especially (dare I say it on Slashdot?) schools run by local Churches. Not all of them are so great (I've seen a few I wouldn't be caught dead sending my child to), but there are enough to where you can get your child a good education on a budget.
Plus, the school bus will still have to run the same route anyway, using essentially the same fuel, regardless of whether the child is on the bus or not.
You're forgetting that the route is determined by which children need to be picked up. If the child is near other school children, then your point holds. If the bus actually has to add to its route to pick up the child, then fuel can be saved through each child who home schools.
You know -- the 90% of the parents of the students in your public school, who already don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut if Johnny can read, as long as he's out of their hair for 8 hours a day.
It's not so simple to "fake" home schooling. According to the laws in many states, you MUST report the attendence and cirriculum of your children to the State. And if anyone reports you for any reason, you may find a truancy officer knocking on your door, wanting to check on your records and teaching ability.
Plus, there is no way to get a high-school degree without knowing at least a minimum amount. Since home schools are not accredited, the student is required to take the GED and/or HSED test to prove his/her competence. The GED isn't TOO hard, but it's sufficient to ensure an education. However, the HSED supplement test is required if you wish to claim a TRUE high school diploma. (GEDs kind of have a stigma attached to them of kids who flunked out and barely scraped by later in life.) I personally took the complete HSED test and scored exceptionally well.
Then there's the case of the ACT/SAT scores. Right now home schoolers are in the upper bracket of these scores. If the average score of a home schooler started dropping on these tests, you can be sure that people would start taking notice.
No, I think the question he's trying to ask is, "How do we home school without home schooling?"
And the answer is, "Just home school the child. The result will be that your child will do *better* acedemically and socially."
The downside is that home schooling isn't for everyone. I was home schooled, but my wife doesn't feel up to the challenge. So we send our kids to a private school. Even then, it was VERY difficult finding a school that was both affordable and met the needs of our child.
So my question is, how can technology be better-implemented to ensure a student's studies and also lower the costs of fuel for the districts?
;-)
Just home school. Through this mircale of modern technology, kids can be better taught than through any other method known to man! Not to mention that your child will receive his very own "teacher unit" who just happens to also be related to the child! A Win-Win situation for all!
Joking aside, Home Schooling is a very good option, especially in rural areas where familys can better afford to only have one parent working. The results of various studies show that the home schoolers easily outperform their publically educated peers, and that the social aspect isn't as big of an issue as was once feared.
From Wikipedia (which actually links to quite a few more sources):
"The academic effectiveness of homeschooling is largely a settled issue. Numerous studies have confirmed the academic integrity of home education programs, demonstrating that average homeschoolers outperform their public school peers by 30 to 37 percentile points across all subjects. Moreover, the performance gaps between minorities and gender that plague public schools are virtually non-existent amongst homeschooled students. Source"
---
"According to the findings, children who were schooled at home 'gained the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes needed to function in society...at a rate similar to that of conventionally schooled children.'
"The researcher found no difference in the self concept of children in the two groups. Stough maintains that 'insofar as self concept is a reflector of socialization, it would appear that few home-schooled children are socially deprived, and that there may be sufficient evidence to indicate that some home-schooled children have a higher self concept than conventionally schooled children.'" Source
Technology only bolsters the abilities of home schoolers. Where as a home schooler of my generation had to be satified with the curriculum, materials the parents could afford, and the local library (an excellent source itself), modern school children can find information on virtually ANY issue simply by checking the Internet. Also, whereas labs done by my generation had to be performed by video tape, the modern generation is capable of actually video conferencing with a lab instructor for more precise education.
Isn't modern technology wonderful?
Weird. That link has always worked before. Now it seems to be down. Try this one:
http://www.advertisementave.com/tv/ad.asp?adid=30
I think you are A LITTLE biased about this movie.
t m
:-)
Well, I would be if it weren't for the origins of my Nick. Check this:
http://www.drakeshangout.com/video/funny/batman.h
After watching the movie, however, I am more proud of my nick than ever!
Oh, so that makes it OK then? If Microsoft stole an idea from someone else which then accounts for 99% of MSFT's revenue, you would feel OK about that too?
Is it ok? Yes. Even when Microsoft does it. Microsoft's problem is that they use their juggernaut might to make an inferior copy, then crush the competition. i.e. They're playing dirty. I'd think a lot less of Google if they made inferior copies, then crushed their competitors. But they don't. Google saw a good idea, but developed it into a very different direction. A bit like, "I hear that 3D graphics are the next greatest thing!" You wouldn't then complain about that person developing their own 3D engine, would you?
Compare that to Microsoft who pre-announced "Windows" just to make sure that VisiOn couldn't capture ANY of the market share. And when I say "pre-announced", I mean that they got wind of what VisiOn was doing, then pretended that they had a product nearly ready for delivery!
Hey, don't blame Microsoft because Spyglass and Digital made bad deals
I do blame Microsoft. SpyGlass's contract explicity stated that they would get royalties for the sale of the browser. Microsoft, however, pulled a fast one by bundling it with the OS (which they made a profit off of!) then paying SpyGlass nothing! It was nothing more than a dirty loophole, and the courts agreed. (Even though SpyGlass still walked away with little.)
Digital also spent considerable money to develop the next generation of VAX. Microsoft then stole the entire development out from under them, profiting on Digital's dime! What they did was outright illegal, yet Microsoft felt no compunctions about screwing over Digital in the settlement. (Suuurrree, we'll port to Alpha. *itllbeuselessbutyouwontknowthat*)
froogles and gmail existed before Google ever thought of them and once Google thought of those names, it tried to force existing owners to give them in addition to their first borns and up
Got proof?
In other words, Scientists hope to find clues to abiogenesis from completely alien life.
Unfortunately, there's a good chance that "life on Mars" is just "life on Earth that migrated to Mars". Many years ago, I remember listening to a scientist who was absolutely certain that we'd find microscopic life on Mars. His reasoning was that with all the ejecta shot into space from Asteroids and other natural phenomena, there *must* be some Earth life that managed to make it to Mars.
Too bad. Seems you're missing out on the Masterpiece that is Batman Begins. If you plan to see one other movie this year, make it Batman Begins! You will not be disappointed!
I realize that's a joke, but I'm afraid that it doesn't quite work that way. Movie pirates often don't pirate things because they really want the individual thing, they pirate them because they can. It's a bit of a gmae to them. i.e. Who can end up with the most stuff. Perhaps the most indicitive signs of this game were the rooms in DirectConnect (since replaced with DC++) that required you to have 40 to 100 GIGS of data shared. If you failed their test, a bot would auto-kick you.
:-/
I wouldn't be surprised if many pirates never use/watch the stuff they get. It's all just a game. A scavanger hunt, if you will. Whoever gets the most stuff "wins". The funny part is that they may just "win" a call from the **AA or law enforcement. What a prize.
A bit of exaggeration, no?
No.
Google's main product, i.e. the thing that allowed them to make 99% of its revenue, is sponsored search - something they "stole" from Overture (now Yahoo!) which they settled by paying $$$ to Yahoo.
Google never actually "stole" anything more than the idea. And their implementation was amazingly different. Microsoft, OTOH, actually used code directly from BG's University. Not to mention their licensing deal with Spyglass that had a small maintenence payment in exchange for royalties on the Internet Explorer sales. (Guess how much Spyglass collected in royalties?) Or the outright theft of the VAX design for the NT kernel. (Which Digital then settled in exchange for NT being ported to the Alpha. Guess how much good that did Digital?)
They also also trying hard to "steal" various trademark such as googles.com, froogles.com, and gmail.com through lawsuits too.
Uh, yeah. Whatever you say. Maybe, just maybe, Google is execising the law to get rid of scammers? Wait, that doesn't sound evil(tm) enough.
Lastly, it is well known that Google has made a number of purchases that are now products e.g.Picasa.
What's you're point? No one is annoyed at the very idea of acquisitions, just that Microsoft plays dirty to get those acquisitions, plus that Microsoft has never actually invented anything in-house. Google has invented plenty, and uses their acquisitions as a means of bolstering their business. e.g. Blogger.com provides a method through which Google can advertise their adsense program to professional bloggers. That's simply not what Microsoft does. Microsoft buys, steals, or outright blocks the next big thing so that all the money ends up in their coffers. Have you forgotten Microsoft's threats against Netscape, or their early announcement tactics against VisiOn?
Mmm... that's why I suggested moving Bookmarks and the like into a DBFS. In doing so, the user gain the power to organize and search on his data in ways that were previously impossible. Just imagine if your bookmarks automatically attached the meta-data about themselves (based on the website). You could then search for "humor" and find a list of everything you thought was funny enough to bookmark!
:-)
That's my idea, anywho.
Recheck your history. For example, the creators of QDOS (the origin of MS-DOS) sued Microsoft because of the relatively low payment they received. Other business deals were equally frowned upon, but Microsoft was often in a good legal position to prevent anyone from doing anything about it.