I was never a good student, but I got A's in all of my math classes until Calculus. I failed it twice.
That's weird. Up to that point, if I could get a "C" in math, I was happy. I made a "B" in geometry, maybe because my Mom (a math and science teacher) spent the Summer home-schooling my sister and me before I took the real class in high school. However, I will say this: when I took Calculus I the first time, in New Mexico, I only made a "C." I made my "A" in Calculus I in Texas, and then took Calc II, III and Dif. Eq.
The hard part about Calculus generally is the algebra. Once you know how to think about integration and differentiation, Calculus I and II are pretty much automatic, except for the algebra. My proudest moment was figuring out how to integrate the volume of a mountain of materials. I should point out that I have never worked harder or longer on any class than I did for Calculus II.
About Calculus III, we started getting into things like "curl" and fields. I was pretty certain that would be about the limit of my math comprehension, ever. Differential Equations was a huge extension of some of the material covered in earlier Calculus classes, but far too clever for me to understand. It didn't help that I got a new instructor for Dif. Eq., an instructor well-known for being a math machine and incomprehensible. I re-took Dif. Eq., this time from the instructor who also taught me Calc I-III, which helped my grade a lot, but not enough to pass the class.
Calculus - yeah, read the book, do the assignments, complete the exam. Hooray, you know calculus - you pass.
Suppose there is some subtle concept in calculus that the book does not make clear to you? Suppose the instructor is able to explain that concept in different ways and see exactly what you are not understanding and so guide you along until you understand that subtle concept? Wouldn't the class be worth more than self-study in that case?
I was never good at math, but I managed to get an "A" in Calculus I and a "B" in Calculus II, partly because the instructor interacted so well with me and partly because a small group of us students met together for a few hours of group study on the homework. If one of us in the group study could figure out the concept, we all learned the concept, and there were times when I learned the concept from the instructor's re-wording.
For Calculus III and Differential Equations, I did not have the advantage of the group study. I barely made it through Calculus III, and I haven't made it through Differential Equations. Both the group study and the instructor are necessary for me, and I have to add an extra hour or so of group study for each succeeding math class I take.
you are required to be working while taking classes? what the hell is this? I can see from their goofy rules that the school is nothing more than a corperate training center.
This is the wave of the future for education. Having tapped dry parents' and grand-parents' funding, and over-crowding government programs, the next big source of income and students is the corporate world. Every college worth its salt has been angling for corporate training for the last few years. The way my own company pushes training, I suspect there is some accounting advantage for the company, too (because there is no practical advantage to my company for the employees in my department to get college degrees, but my company is making stronger and stronger pushes for it).
College, for most students, is not about education; it is about certification. Everything centers around certifying that students have taken a program in a field that someone with big pockets wants staffed. Even so, a lot of colleges now require incoming students to know a second language, which probably has practical advantages for the student.
the institutions would price whatever program (degree or diploma) at the level of the government loans and just sing people up
I hope the moderators mod up your post (and a few other posts in this general part of the thread), because you have some worthwhile things you say.
As for the practice of charging what the market will bear, I believe this is a universal practice. The not-for-profits have a lot more sophistication in the way they do this, but the bottom line is, the schools know there is a lot of money available that students can obtain (loans, grants, gifts, etc.), and people will pay almost anything a school asks. If the school is too expensive, the government (from the tax-payers) will pay it. This is the reason that the cost of a college education has risen much faster than the rate of inflation for the last 30 years.
Eight years ago, I took out my first college loan (up to that point, I had always been able to pay my school bill without loans), and I attended 4 semesters. Five years ago, I bought a 3 year-old pickup truck. I paid off the pickup truck last year without any mistakes made by the loan holders. I am still paying off the college loan, and the loan holders dinged my credit report when they screwed up noting my payment. And, would you like to guess which product has earned me more money? Hint: it has never let me down when I needed it.
If that has been your college experience, then the institution you selected was quite weak. College is never about busy work but about teaching how to think about things. I am currently a PhD student and an instructor for classes and I never assign my students busy work. I assign problems that will make them think about how to apply the information they should have gathered from lecture to a problem.
Hurray for you, and I mean that. I've attended several conventional colleges, and it is not unusual for me to think I could do just as well buying the textbooks and hardware and learning on my own. Supposedly, the instructor in such classes is teaching me to think on my own. Fine; I can think on my own without going into hock to some school. This is particularly true of programming, which I am beginning to suspect is never actually taught anywhere, because everyone has theories about programming, but no one has any science. All that exists in the programming world are fads and baseless dogmatic assertions.
Besides, the notes were just that... Notes.... Not nearly as detailed as the lectures. By themselves, they were useless. But once you attend the lectures and associate them with the examples he gives and such, it becomes crystal clear.
Note taking is an important skill and part of the learning process. Is the professor going to write notes for you after you graduate? Do you expect your boss to write your notes for you? Or, do you not expect ever to take notes after graduation?
what would need to be done to keep it afloat and operational, and how much would that cost (ballpark)?
I worked in the engine room of a ship that is almost as long but not as wide as this aircraft carrier. We had 9 people assigned to the Engine Room, a few more assigned to the boiler room (I don't know how many--maybe 12?), a couple of people down in Evaps... We took water level readings on our feed and potable water tanks every half-hour, besides checking a dozen oil flow gauges and steam turbine RPMs. The main air ejector had to be taken apart and new gaskets applied every 2 or 3 years, I think, and all the scores of other valves in the Engine Room had to be lubricated every few months. The bilges had to be flushed of water (and oil) a few times a day (just turn on the bilge eductor, if you don't mind dumping oily water overboard). Condensing water has to be mopped up pretty constantly when the ship is underway, as well as any oil leaks. Vacuum pressure on the turbo generator condensors and the main propulsion turbine condensor must be monitored continuously when in operation. Electrical voltages must be monitored to maintain tolerances, and the turbo generators have to maintain their RPMs within tolerances (checked every hour).
In addition to the fairly ordinary, daily tasks, there are quarterly or annual tasks, like cleaning the soot out of the boilers. This task was cited by the Navy as one of the main problems in getting Boiler Techs to re-enlist. I suspect this is a reason the Navy has eliminated the BT rate by combining it with the Machinist Mate rate. Now, when someone doesn't make it to Nuke school, they can truly go to the lowest level of Hell on Earth.
This is in addition to all the other parts of the ship: the ship's galley, the catapult on the flight deck, navigation, radio room, anchor room, elevators, steering...
I have no idea what all this would cost, except a lot.
They're hoping to use the new Large Hadron Collider at the European Center for Nuclear Research
That's a great idea! Europe already is one giant black hole!
Who Can Predict What is Useful to the Public?
on
Information Obesity
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
But seriously, what's not of interest to some people may be exactly what one individual is searching for. I know I've found obscure information only available on a page or two in all of Google, and I know people have come to my sites on some pretty strange search terms.
That's exactly the point I came on here to make. It is impossible for the private Webmaster (and probably commercial Webmasters) to know what information might be useful.
I have an eclectic mix of information on my personal Web site. I doubt very many people would be interested in everything I post, but my Web site offers information found nowhere else on the Web that I know is of interest to several people. Several people have expressed interest and appreciation in the copy of Bagster's "History of English Translations and Translators" that I have on my site, and others have said they have enjoyed my story about my Navy experiences. Maybe someone else would be interested in my college class (Advanced Lasers) report on dye lasers? But, what is most relevant to the question of posting only interesting information would probably be my autobiography, which necessarily contains arcane details of limited appeal.
In matters of research, it is impossible to predict what little bit of information might make all the difference to a single reader. As someone who does a fair amount of research, more information generally is better than less, provided that the information is organized for rapid searching. I rarely need an entire document (the longer, the less-likely), but I often need some brief bit of information that often is not included in any article.
The unaltered 'band-gap' crystal structure traps some quantum energy states... Since 'band-gap' crystals apply to all waves and not just photonic, this same method can be applied to sound and heat waves as well.
I have spent the last several minutes brushing up on this topic, and it appears that your general ideas are correct, but I am confused by the way you have expressed them. First, you state that bandgap crystals work by acting on quantum energy states. This would make sense, because the concept of a "bandgap" is a quantum energy concept, but then you say that these bandgap materials work on non-quantum waves (sound). I might suppose you refer to phonon (quantized vibrational energy), but other references show that bandgap materials are used on ordinary soundwaves in air. I don't see how this follows.
Also, when you refer to "heat waves," are you referring to electromagnetic radiation?
Of the major industrialized countries, we give the lowest percent of our GDP as foreign aid.
This is a bogus claim that a lot of Europeans (especially from Germany) keep posting to Usenet. I've disproved it repeatedly.
The US *government* gives a lower percentage of money to UN programs than do other countries, but the United States (particularly private contributions) gives MUCH more to foreign countries as a percentage of GDP than any other nation. When I demonstrate this from various sources, the only reply I get is that private monies don't count. Only money given by our government--particularly TO THE UN--counts. Stinkin' Socialists...
Re:I didn't volunteer my money to burn up on reent
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
The first shuttle, Enterprise, could not lift off on its own so it was retired. It had to be launched from the back of a 747.
It would be more accurate to say that Shuttle Orbiter "Enterprise" was released from a 747, for a glide flight back to ground. It could not, of course, launch into space from the back of a 747. Indeed, it could not go into space at all, the way it was outfitted. It is now the property of the Smithsonian.
Re:I didn't volunteer my money to burn up on reent
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
That guy made the choice to stand infront of a tank that was driving at him. He could have moved. Sure he wasn't attacking it, but standing infront of something and letting it run you over doesn't make it entirely the tanks fault.
The only guy who intentionally stood in front of the tank in the Chinese protest was not run over. All the tanks stopped, and then he climbed onto the tank and spoke to the driver. Rumor is, he asked the driver why he was doing this, causing chaos to the city. Then, bystanders in the crowd pulled him into the crowd, and he was lost to anonymity. The authorities never found him.
It's surprising how many people remember that the guy was run over.
Ummmm, there's life on Earth. Unless you're hypothesizing that it was planted here from somewhere else, abiogenesis happened here.
First point: You don't know specifically how life came to be on a lifeless planet. All you know is after-the-fact.
While Earth may be unique we have no reason to think it either is or is not.
I suppose that could be a second point: we don't know whether Earth is or not (though I would be willing to assume that Earth is not physically unique or irreproducible).
Life happened here by some mechanism and I'm not sure why you think that mechanism can't perform anywhere else. Unless of course you can tell me what that mechanism is and why it's impossible elsewhere.
One of my demands is that I have a reason to believe in the positive statement. That is, if you say life could be on Mars, you would have to tell me of a mechanism that we know would put life on Mars. It is not enough for me that you would say, "There is life on Earth, so there could be life on Mars." While I would admit that for some sufficiently-low value of probability, there could be life on Mars, I am actually looking for a reason to believe there could be life on Mars, not just an extrapolation. Such extrapolation usually results in fanciful thinking, not reasonable expectation.
If you want to go the any-probability route, I could just as well postulate that quantum tunneling put life on Mars--how can you say it didn't? Highly unlikely, you say? So, what?! You can't say that abiogenesis on Mars is more or less likely than quantum tunneling to Mars, because no one knows how abiogenesis would work, anywhere, or even if it would work.
The fact that there is life on Earth says nothing about the rest of the Universe.
Make it illegal for anyone to sell anything at a loss by default, and require an application for an exception to the law to permit "loss leaders".
Several years ago, I was suckered into becoming a retailer for ColorCo thermochromatic t-shirts. I paid a lot of money to get a license so I could buy the shirts, then more money on the shirts. I had to buy some large quantity of t-shirts at a time, too. Unfortunatetly, I was unable to sell them, at least not at a profit. Over the years, I managed slowly to whittle down my inventory in exchange for ridiculous swaps. I gave a Navajo woman a half-dozen of my color-changing t-shirts in exchange for one of her silver-plated plastic necklaces (I went to a jewelry store to see if I could get anything for the necklace. I couldn't.)
If you had your way, I would have been stuck with a gross of t-shirts that I could not even give away.
to test for the presence of life, you only need to determine whether the atmosphere is in chemical equilibrium. Mars' atmosphere is, and has been for many millions of years.
Interesting line of reasoning. I hadn't heard of it before. However, I have my own reason not to put any hope in the search for extraterrestrial life, namely, there is no known mechanism by which life can naturally form without the involvement of other life. IOW, not only has no one ever seen abiogenesis work, no one even has a workable theory of how abiogenesis could work. Every theory of abiogenesis breaks down in any realistic condition.
I hope NASA spends a lot of time and money looking for life on Mars, because it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the idea that where there is water, energy and organics, there would be life. How many negative results NASA will have to get before they realize that their core asumption is wrong, I don't know.
Life on Earth is unique. It took more than just water, organics and energy for life to appear on Earth, or anywhere else.
Silicon, the main material used in semiconductors, does not emit light, and therefore can't be used in optoelectronic products, Avouris said.
I beg to differ. Silicon has been made to emit light in various ways for over a decade.
"Scientists at Surrey University, led by researcher Kevin Homewood, are showing off a prototype silicon-based light-emitting diode (LED) -- an invention that could be of significance to the whole electronics and communication industry.
"By enabling silicon to emit light, the scientists say they may have found a way to use light to efficiently transfer data around microchips. This could lead to smaller, more powerful computers and improve data communications significantly."
"The photoluminescence emanating from a regular array of 1.2 m sized dots composed of Si nanocrystals was studied with spatial, spectral and temporal resolution."
"GENEVA, Switzerland -- STMicrolectronics claims to have achieved a breakthrough in the creation of light-emitting silicon and said it would have engineering samples of monolithic silicon devices based on the technology, combining electrical isolation and optical communication, before the end of 2002.
"The development allows silicon light emitters to match the efficiency of compound semiconductor materials such as gallium arsenide for the first time, the company said."
"The discovery of visible luminescence from porous silicon [1] has stimulated a large interest in this material. Numerous studies have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve efficient visible luminescence from porous silicon layers [2]. This material system has significant economic potential as efficient visible emitters could be fabricated on silicon wafers and incorporated with current microelectronic devices using existing silicon processing technologies."
[1] L. T. Canham. "Silicon quantum wire array fabrication by electrochemical and chemical dissolution of wafers." Appl. Phys.Lett., 1990, 57 1046 - 1048.
[2] For a recent review of the work in porous silicon see : Thin Solid Films, 1995, 225 and "Porous Silicon", edited by Z. Chuan and R Tsu, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.
BTW, technically, photocells are optoelectronic devices, as are LEDs.
Re:We can have a PC not based on twenty year old t
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
it's like all the posts complaining about how anything running on a 486 running DOS should be upgraded, when in fact it already does its job quite well.
At the same time, there are a lot of business managers who try to push the back end of the performance envelope. DOS was never intended to be a multitasking, multiuser, networked, real-time, secure OS, but there are plenty of business out there trying to use it that way.
In my few years of software support, I have been asked by clients to help get their ragged old store computers working after the systems have died. I've seen 15 year-old computers that were not Y2K compatible still being used (proprietary, not PC-based, and the only source of parts are from other dead machines). I've seen computer networks using coax cable held together with tape so old that the tape crumbled when touched, causing the cable to fall apart and the network to crash. I have seen a huge, mission-critical database whose interface is an old ASCII terminal emulator that does not use a mouse interface at all and interprets "CNTL-C" as "Reboot." I've seen little AT boxes that have been sitting and working on the desk so long that there are clods of dust pouring out of every hole in the case, including the floppy drives.
I have to agree that the seller would always like for the buyer to upgrade frequently, and Intel is the seller in this case. I just want to point out that sometimes, the buyer needs to listen to him.
1. A:= modern interpretation of quantum theory, with time and space quantized.
As I understand it, quantum theory does not call for time and space to be quantized. It allows for it, but the two ideas (quantum theory and quantized space-time) are distinguishable.
I just read a "Spacedaily" article that seems clear enough on the point:
"Using two HST images, astronomers from Italy and Germany looked for but did not find evidence supporting a prevailing scientific theory that says time, space and gravity are composed of tiny quantum bits.
"'You can say,' said Ragazzoni, 'that this measurement constrains the quantum gravity theory to certain parameters.'"
"The Planck-scale quantum theories of time, space and gravity were derived from attempts to calculate the theoretical limits to electromagnetic energy, according to a UAH physicist, Dr. Richard Lieu.
"In his theory of general relativity, Einstein theorized that time, space and gravity are different manifestations of the same phenomenon, much as light and thunder are signatures of the electrical discharge in lightning. If time is made up of quantum bits, that would also mean space and gravity should also be composed of quantum units.
"Since the expected blurring 'signature' of quantum space time isn't seen, however, it might mean that time isn't made of quantum bits, and neither are space or gravity."
I know a lot of smug geeks who used to like to insist we all contemplate ideas of, for example, quantum time, as if just thinking of such things meant they were better people than everyone else. Hah! I guess this will show 'em!
"The ABL weapon system consists of a high-energy, chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) mounted on a modified 747-400F (freighter) aircraft to shoot down theater ballistic missiles in their boost phase. A crew of four, including pilot and copilot, would be required to operate the airborne laser, which would patrol in pairs at high altitude, about 40,000 feet, flying in orbits over friendly territory, scanning the horizon for the plumes of rising missiles. Capable of autonomous operation, the ABL would acquire and track missiles in the boost phase of flight, illuminating the missile with a tracking laser beam while computers measure the distance and calculate its course and direction. After acquiring and locking onto the target, a second laser - with weapons-class strength - would fire a three- to five-second burst from a turret located in the 747's nose, destroying the missiles over the launch area."
"Lockheed Martin Space Systems, a member of Team Airborne Laser (ABL), has begun fabrication of the revolutionary, high-energy laser weapon system's turret assembly at its Sunnyvale, Calif., facility.
"The turret assembly, located on the nose of the system's modified 747-400 Freighter aircraft, houses a rotating 1.5-meter telescope designed to locate hostile missiles while in their boost phase."
there are quite a few people that can hear the extremely high-pitched whine of CRT's scanning
I am so glad to hear you say that... though a little sad at the slight loss of uniqueness. My sister and I have always been able to hear TV set electronics. If someone has the windows of their house open, I can hear their TV electronics from out on the street, sometimes as much as 100 feet away.
I can also hear the LCD display on my digital camera if I hold it a few inches from my ear on a quiet day. I'm used to hearing various operating sounds from my computer (and computer monitor), to the point that I sub-consciously que myself based on the sounds the computer makes.
The most startling effect that I've noticed came once when I was in the Navy. I was sent to wake up the shift relief one night. I walked into a darkened sleeping compartment and walked over to where I knew the relief was sleeping. I could hear his headphones playing in the dark. When I awoke him, I had a strong impression of the headphones rising as he lifted his head, then *turning towards me*. I could actually tell when he turned his head in the dark!
I'm also fairly sensitive to low-frequency sounds. In the past, I have been able to tell the location of automobile engines several yards all around me, but I am now finding myself alarmingly deaf--sometimes, I don't notice a car until it is right in front of me. I don't know if the engines are getting quieter or I'm going deaf.
I managed to maintain my hearing through 2 years working in the engine room of a US Navy ship. However, 2 years of driving a wind-noisy car at 70 mph has nearly destroyed my high-pitched hearing in my left ear. I can no longer tell direction of the TV sets that I can still hear well with my right ear. BTW, I'm about 37 years old.
As to bin Laden's cronies - I'm *quite* sure they expected a reaction. That was the whole point of the exercise.
FWIW, OBL decided that the US did not have the stomach to fight after Clinton pulled our troops out of Somalia following the botched raid (raid portrayed in "Blackhawk Down").
Well, what do we really expect to learn from it that we already haven't?
I'm certain there is much more to learn. You know, we only recently discovered the remnants of a magnetic field on parts of Moon. We think there might be a vaste field of sub-surface ice around the poles, too. We've only been able to take samples from a dozen landing sites on one side of Moon, all around the middle latitudes.
Does or did Moon have a liquid core? How big is that core, and is it spinning? Is it practical to extract helium-3 from moondust? Would it be practical to extract water from Moon?
i went to the kennedy space center and they have a saturn V just sitting there.
Not useable, for a variety of reasons. Due to the processes of time (corrosion in the salt water environment and the natural electrolytic action of the metals of all the components, etc), any Saturn V still around might as well be made of wood, for all the usefulness it would be in flying.
in fact, who cares? if we were to remake ENIAC right now it'd probably cost millions and require infrastructure to make vacuum tubes that we might not have nowadays, but nobody would say we can't match the feats of ENIAC, or that we're behind where we were in the 40s.
There are significant differences between progress in computer technology and progress in rocket technology. The most obvious is the astounding progress of computer technology compared to any other technology (the old joke about the capability of cars if they had advanced as much as computers applies).
Consider the International Space Station. Despite a half-dozen nations contributing to it, despite the US sinking several billion dollars a year into it, despite advances in technology, despite the relative simplicity of just orbiting a structure around LEO, we may never see ISS completed, especially now that our "superior" technology fell apart over Texas.
If we wanted to put men on Moon now, we would have to re-design the vehicles from scratch, and convert some launch facilities. We don't have very much technology or materials that we could leverage to cut the cost. We might have better ways of doing things, but don't expect the costs to be any less than for the first ones we launched, or for the time required to be any shorter. I doubt we could put a man on Moon within 5 years, assuming even an all-out crash program to do so. Considering our other priorities, we aren't going to focus on putting someone on Moon.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone ever wants to build a 40-mile radius solar system that has room to orbit the planets, many Texans could loan out their back yards.
That's weird. Up to that point, if I could get a "C" in math, I was happy. I made a "B" in geometry, maybe because my Mom (a math and science teacher) spent the Summer home-schooling my sister and me before I took the real class in high school. However, I will say this: when I took Calculus I the first time, in New Mexico, I only made a "C." I made my "A" in Calculus I in Texas, and then took Calc II, III and Dif. Eq.
The hard part about Calculus generally is the algebra. Once you know how to think about integration and differentiation, Calculus I and II are pretty much automatic, except for the algebra. My proudest moment was figuring out how to integrate the volume of a mountain of materials. I should point out that I have never worked harder or longer on any class than I did for Calculus II.
About Calculus III, we started getting into things like "curl" and fields. I was pretty certain that would be about the limit of my math comprehension, ever. Differential Equations was a huge extension of some of the material covered in earlier Calculus classes, but far too clever for me to understand. It didn't help that I got a new instructor for Dif. Eq., an instructor well-known for being a math machine and incomprehensible. I re-took Dif. Eq., this time from the instructor who also taught me Calc I-III, which helped my grade a lot, but not enough to pass the class.
Suppose there is some subtle concept in calculus that the book does not make clear to you? Suppose the instructor is able to explain that concept in different ways and see exactly what you are not understanding and so guide you along until you understand that subtle concept? Wouldn't the class be worth more than self-study in that case?
I was never good at math, but I managed to get an "A" in Calculus I and a "B" in Calculus II, partly because the instructor interacted so well with me and partly because a small group of us students met together for a few hours of group study on the homework. If one of us in the group study could figure out the concept, we all learned the concept, and there were times when I learned the concept from the instructor's re-wording.
For Calculus III and Differential Equations, I did not have the advantage of the group study. I barely made it through Calculus III, and I haven't made it through Differential Equations. Both the group study and the instructor are necessary for me, and I have to add an extra hour or so of group study for each succeeding math class I take.
This is the wave of the future for education. Having tapped dry parents' and grand-parents' funding, and over-crowding government programs, the next big source of income and students is the corporate world. Every college worth its salt has been angling for corporate training for the last few years. The way my own company pushes training, I suspect there is some accounting advantage for the company, too (because there is no practical advantage to my company for the employees in my department to get college degrees, but my company is making stronger and stronger pushes for it).
College, for most students, is not about education; it is about certification. Everything centers around certifying that students have taken a program in a field that someone with big pockets wants staffed. Even so, a lot of colleges now require incoming students to know a second language, which probably has practical advantages for the student.
I hope the moderators mod up your post (and a few other posts in this general part of the thread), because you have some worthwhile things you say.
As for the practice of charging what the market will bear, I believe this is a universal practice. The not-for-profits have a lot more sophistication in the way they do this, but the bottom line is, the schools know there is a lot of money available that students can obtain (loans, grants, gifts, etc.), and people will pay almost anything a school asks. If the school is too expensive, the government (from the tax-payers) will pay it. This is the reason that the cost of a college education has risen much faster than the rate of inflation for the last 30 years.
Eight years ago, I took out my first college loan (up to that point, I had always been able to pay my school bill without loans), and I attended 4 semesters. Five years ago, I bought a 3 year-old pickup truck. I paid off the pickup truck last year without any mistakes made by the loan holders. I am still paying off the college loan, and the loan holders dinged my credit report when they screwed up noting my payment. And, would you like to guess which product has earned me more money? Hint: it has never let me down when I needed it.
Hurray for you, and I mean that. I've attended several conventional colleges, and it is not unusual for me to think I could do just as well buying the textbooks and hardware and learning on my own. Supposedly, the instructor in such classes is teaching me to think on my own. Fine; I can think on my own without going into hock to some school. This is particularly true of programming, which I am beginning to suspect is never actually taught anywhere, because everyone has theories about programming, but no one has any science. All that exists in the programming world are fads and baseless dogmatic assertions.
Note taking is an important skill and part of the learning process. Is the professor going to write notes for you after you graduate? Do you expect your boss to write your notes for you? Or, do you not expect ever to take notes after graduation?
I worked in the engine room of a ship that is almost as long but not as wide as this aircraft carrier. We had 9 people assigned to the Engine Room, a few more assigned to the boiler room (I don't know how many--maybe 12?), a couple of people down in Evaps... We took water level readings on our feed and potable water tanks every half-hour, besides checking a dozen oil flow gauges and steam turbine RPMs. The main air ejector had to be taken apart and new gaskets applied every 2 or 3 years, I think, and all the scores of other valves in the Engine Room had to be lubricated every few months. The bilges had to be flushed of water (and oil) a few times a day (just turn on the bilge eductor, if you don't mind dumping oily water overboard). Condensing water has to be mopped up pretty constantly when the ship is underway, as well as any oil leaks. Vacuum pressure on the turbo generator condensors and the main propulsion turbine condensor must be monitored continuously when in operation. Electrical voltages must be monitored to maintain tolerances, and the turbo generators have to maintain their RPMs within tolerances (checked every hour).
In addition to the fairly ordinary, daily tasks, there are quarterly or annual tasks, like cleaning the soot out of the boilers. This task was cited by the Navy as one of the main problems in getting Boiler Techs to re-enlist. I suspect this is a reason the Navy has eliminated the BT rate by combining it with the Machinist Mate rate. Now, when someone doesn't make it to Nuke school, they can truly go to the lowest level of Hell on Earth.
This is in addition to all the other parts of the ship: the ship's galley, the catapult on the flight deck, navigation, radio room, anchor room, elevators, steering...
I have no idea what all this would cost, except a lot.
That's a great idea! Europe already is one giant black hole!
That's exactly the point I came on here to make. It is impossible for the private Webmaster (and probably commercial Webmasters) to know what information might be useful.
I have an eclectic mix of information on my personal Web site. I doubt very many people would be interested in everything I post, but my Web site offers information found nowhere else on the Web that I know is of interest to several people. Several people have expressed interest and appreciation in the copy of Bagster's "History of English Translations and Translators" that I have on my site, and others have said they have enjoyed my story about my Navy experiences. Maybe someone else would be interested in my college class (Advanced Lasers) report on dye lasers? But, what is most relevant to the question of posting only interesting information would probably be my autobiography, which necessarily contains arcane details of limited appeal.
In matters of research, it is impossible to predict what little bit of information might make all the difference to a single reader. As someone who does a fair amount of research, more information generally is better than less, provided that the information is organized for rapid searching. I rarely need an entire document (the longer, the less-likely), but I often need some brief bit of information that often is not included in any article.
I have spent the last several minutes brushing up on this topic, and it appears that your general ideas are correct, but I am confused by the way you have expressed them. First, you state that bandgap crystals work by acting on quantum energy states. This would make sense, because the concept of a "bandgap" is a quantum energy concept, but then you say that these bandgap materials work on non-quantum waves (sound). I might suppose you refer to phonon (quantized vibrational energy), but other references show that bandgap materials are used on ordinary soundwaves in air. I don't see how this follows.
Also, when you refer to "heat waves," are you referring to electromagnetic radiation?
This is a bogus claim that a lot of Europeans (especially from Germany) keep posting to Usenet. I've disproved it repeatedly.
The US *government* gives a lower percentage of money to UN programs than do other countries, but the United States (particularly private contributions) gives MUCH more to foreign countries as a percentage of GDP than any other nation. When I demonstrate this from various sources, the only reply I get is that private monies don't count. Only money given by our government--particularly TO THE UN--counts. Stinkin' Socialists...
It would be more accurate to say that Shuttle Orbiter "Enterprise" was released from a 747, for a glide flight back to ground. It could not, of course, launch into space from the back of a 747. Indeed, it could not go into space at all, the way it was outfitted. It is now the property of the Smithsonian.
The only guy who intentionally stood in front of the tank in the Chinese protest was not run over. All the tanks stopped, and then he climbed onto the tank and spoke to the driver. Rumor is, he asked the driver why he was doing this, causing chaos to the city. Then, bystanders in the crowd pulled him into the crowd, and he was lost to anonymity. The authorities never found him.
It's surprising how many people remember that the guy was run over.
First point: You don't know specifically how life came to be on a lifeless planet. All you know is after-the-fact.
While Earth may be unique we have no reason to think it either is or is not.
I suppose that could be a second point: we don't know whether Earth is or not (though I would be willing to assume that Earth is not physically unique or irreproducible).
Life happened here by some mechanism and I'm not sure why you think that mechanism can't perform anywhere else. Unless of course you can tell me what that mechanism is and why it's impossible elsewhere.
One of my demands is that I have a reason to believe in the positive statement. That is, if you say life could be on Mars, you would have to tell me of a mechanism that we know would put life on Mars. It is not enough for me that you would say, "There is life on Earth, so there could be life on Mars." While I would admit that for some sufficiently-low value of probability, there could be life on Mars, I am actually looking for a reason to believe there could be life on Mars, not just an extrapolation. Such extrapolation usually results in fanciful thinking, not reasonable expectation.
If you want to go the any-probability route, I could just as well postulate that quantum tunneling put life on Mars--how can you say it didn't? Highly unlikely, you say? So, what?! You can't say that abiogenesis on Mars is more or less likely than quantum tunneling to Mars, because no one knows how abiogenesis would work, anywhere, or even if it would work.
The fact that there is life on Earth says nothing about the rest of the Universe.
Several years ago, I was suckered into becoming a retailer for ColorCo thermochromatic t-shirts. I paid a lot of money to get a license so I could buy the shirts, then more money on the shirts. I had to buy some large quantity of t-shirts at a time, too. Unfortunatetly, I was unable to sell them, at least not at a profit. Over the years, I managed slowly to whittle down my inventory in exchange for ridiculous swaps. I gave a Navajo woman a half-dozen of my color-changing t-shirts in exchange for one of her silver-plated plastic necklaces (I went to a jewelry store to see if I could get anything for the necklace. I couldn't.)
If you had your way, I would have been stuck with a gross of t-shirts that I could not even give away.
BTW, I'm not in the t-shirt business, anymore.
Interesting line of reasoning. I hadn't heard of it before. However, I have my own reason not to put any hope in the search for extraterrestrial life, namely, there is no known mechanism by which life can naturally form without the involvement of other life. IOW, not only has no one ever seen abiogenesis work, no one even has a workable theory of how abiogenesis could work. Every theory of abiogenesis breaks down in any realistic condition.
I hope NASA spends a lot of time and money looking for life on Mars, because it will be just one more nail in the coffin of the idea that where there is water, energy and organics, there would be life. How many negative results NASA will have to get before they realize that their core asumption is wrong, I don't know.
Life on Earth is unique. It took more than just water, organics and energy for life to appear on Earth, or anywhere else.
I beg to differ. Silicon has been made to emit light in various ways for over a decade.
"Scientists at Surrey University, led by researcher Kevin Homewood, are showing off a prototype silicon-based light-emitting diode (LED) -- an invention that could be of significance to the whole electronics and communication industry.
"By enabling silicon to emit light, the scientists say they may have found a way to use light to efficiently transfer data around microchips. This could lead to smaller, more powerful computers and improve data communications significantly."
ZDNet UK: Light-emitting silicon boosts chip speeds: 8th March 2001
"The photoluminescence emanating from a regular array of 1.2 m sized dots composed of Si nanocrystals was studied with spatial, spectral and temporal resolution."
New Journal of Physics: Nanostructuration with visible-light-emitting silicon nanocrystals
"GENEVA, Switzerland -- STMicrolectronics claims to have achieved a breakthrough in the creation of light-emitting silicon and said it would have engineering samples of monolithic silicon devices based on the technology, combining electrical isolation and optical communication, before the end of 2002.
"The development allows silicon light emitters to match the efficiency of compound semiconductor materials such as gallium arsenide for the first time, the company said."
EE Times: STMicro claims light-emitting silicon breakthrough: October 28, 2002
"The discovery of visible luminescence from porous silicon [1] has stimulated a large interest in this material. Numerous studies have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve efficient visible luminescence from porous silicon layers [2]. This material system has significant economic potential as efficient visible emitters could be fabricated on silicon wafers and incorporated with current microelectronic devices using existing silicon processing technologies."
[1] L. T. Canham. "Silicon quantum wire array fabrication by electrochemical and chemical dissolution of wafers." Appl. Phys.Lett., 1990, 57 1046 - 1048.
[2] For a recent review of the work in porous silicon see : Thin Solid Films, 1995, 225 and "Porous Silicon", edited by Z. Chuan and R Tsu, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.
A Visible Large Area Light Emitting Diode Fabricated From Porous Silicon Using A Conducting Polyaniline Contact
BTW, technically, photocells are optoelectronic devices, as are LEDs.
At the same time, there are a lot of business managers who try to push the back end of the performance envelope. DOS was never intended to be a multitasking, multiuser, networked, real-time, secure OS, but there are plenty of business out there trying to use it that way.
In my few years of software support, I have been asked by clients to help get their ragged old store computers working after the systems have died. I've seen 15 year-old computers that were not Y2K compatible still being used (proprietary, not PC-based, and the only source of parts are from other dead machines). I've seen computer networks using coax cable held together with tape so old that the tape crumbled when touched, causing the cable to fall apart and the network to crash. I have seen a huge, mission-critical database whose interface is an old ASCII terminal emulator that does not use a mouse interface at all and interprets "CNTL-C" as "Reboot." I've seen little AT boxes that have been sitting and working on the desk so long that there are clods of dust pouring out of every hole in the case, including the floppy drives.
I have to agree that the seller would always like for the buyer to upgrade frequently, and Intel is the seller in this case. I just want to point out that sometimes, the buyer needs to listen to him.
As I understand it, quantum theory does not call for time and space to be quantized. It allows for it, but the two ideas (quantum theory and quantized space-time) are distinguishable.
I just read a "Spacedaily" article that seems clear enough on the point:
"Using two HST images, astronomers from Italy and Germany looked for but did not find evidence supporting a prevailing scientific theory that says time, space and gravity are composed of tiny quantum bits.
"'You can say,' said Ragazzoni, 'that this measurement constrains the quantum gravity theory to certain parameters.'"
"The Planck-scale quantum theories of time, space and gravity were derived from attempts to calculate the theoretical limits to electromagnetic energy, according to a UAH physicist, Dr. Richard Lieu.
"In his theory of general relativity, Einstein theorized that time, space and gravity are different manifestations of the same phenomenon, much as light and thunder are signatures of the electrical discharge in lightning. If time is made up of quantum bits, that would also mean space and gravity should also be composed of quantum units.
"Since the expected blurring 'signature' of quantum space time isn't seen, however, it might mean that time isn't made of quantum bits, and neither are space or gravity."
Spacedaily: Astronomers Deal Blow To Quantum Theories Of Time, Space, Gravity
I know a lot of smug geeks who used to like to insist we all contemplate ideas of, for example, quantum time, as if just thinking of such things meant they were better people than everyone else. Hah! I guess this will show 'em!
FAS: Airborne Laser
"Lockheed Martin Space Systems, a member of Team Airborne Laser (ABL), has begun fabrication of the revolutionary, high-energy laser weapon system's turret assembly at its Sunnyvale, Calif., facility.
"The turret assembly, located on the nose of the system's modified 747-400 Freighter aircraft, houses a rotating 1.5-meter telescope designed to locate hostile missiles while in their boost phase."
SpaceDaily: LockMart Begins Building Airborne Laser Turret
I am so glad to hear you say that... though a little sad at the slight loss of uniqueness. My sister and I have always been able to hear TV set electronics. If someone has the windows of their house open, I can hear their TV electronics from out on the street, sometimes as much as 100 feet away.
I can also hear the LCD display on my digital camera if I hold it a few inches from my ear on a quiet day. I'm used to hearing various operating sounds from my computer (and computer monitor), to the point that I sub-consciously que myself based on the sounds the computer makes.
The most startling effect that I've noticed came once when I was in the Navy. I was sent to wake up the shift relief one night. I walked into a darkened sleeping compartment and walked over to where I knew the relief was sleeping. I could hear his headphones playing in the dark. When I awoke him, I had a strong impression of the headphones rising as he lifted his head, then *turning towards me*. I could actually tell when he turned his head in the dark!
I'm also fairly sensitive to low-frequency sounds. In the past, I have been able to tell the location of automobile engines several yards all around me, but I am now finding myself alarmingly deaf--sometimes, I don't notice a car until it is right in front of me. I don't know if the engines are getting quieter or I'm going deaf.
I managed to maintain my hearing through 2 years working in the engine room of a US Navy ship. However, 2 years of driving a wind-noisy car at 70 mph has nearly destroyed my high-pitched hearing in my left ear. I can no longer tell direction of the TV sets that I can still hear well with my right ear. BTW, I'm about 37 years old.
FWIW, OBL decided that the US did not have the stomach to fight after Clinton pulled our troops out of Somalia following the botched raid (raid portrayed in "Blackhawk Down").
I'm certain there is much more to learn. You know, we only recently discovered the remnants of a magnetic field on parts of Moon. We think there might be a vaste field of sub-surface ice around the poles, too. We've only been able to take samples from a dozen landing sites on one side of Moon, all around the middle latitudes.
Does or did Moon have a liquid core? How big is that core, and is it spinning? Is it practical to extract helium-3 from moondust? Would it be practical to extract water from Moon?
We have hardly scratched the surface!
Not useable, for a variety of reasons. Due to the processes of time (corrosion in the salt water environment and the natural electrolytic action of the metals of all the components, etc), any Saturn V still around might as well be made of wood, for all the usefulness it would be in flying.
in fact, who cares? if we were to remake ENIAC right now it'd probably cost millions and require infrastructure to make vacuum tubes that we might not have nowadays, but nobody would say we can't match the feats of ENIAC, or that we're behind where we were in the 40s.
There are significant differences between progress in computer technology and progress in rocket technology. The most obvious is the astounding progress of computer technology compared to any other technology (the old joke about the capability of cars if they had advanced as much as computers applies).
Consider the International Space Station. Despite a half-dozen nations contributing to it, despite the US sinking several billion dollars a year into it, despite advances in technology, despite the relative simplicity of just orbiting a structure around LEO, we may never see ISS completed, especially now that our "superior" technology fell apart over Texas.
If we wanted to put men on Moon now, we would have to re-design the vehicles from scratch, and convert some launch facilities. We don't have very much technology or materials that we could leverage to cut the cost. We might have better ways of doing things, but don't expect the costs to be any less than for the first ones we launched, or for the time required to be any shorter. I doubt we could put a man on Moon within 5 years, assuming even an all-out crash program to do so. Considering our other priorities, we aren't going to focus on putting someone on Moon.