"Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance."
- Dr AR Dykes, in an address to the British Institution of Structural Engineers (1976)
"Engineering is a great profession. There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on the paper. Then it moves to realisation in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings homes to men or women. Then it elevates the standard of living and adds to the comforts of life. This is the engineer's high priviledge."
- Herbert Hoover, U.S. President (1929 - 1932)
The NYT article is called "Science's 10 Most Beautiful Experiments" (my emphasis)
M-M experiment may have been [very] significant and influential, but I wouldn't call it beautiful. Same with superconductors. Only my opinion of course...:)
I've shot 8000 pictures since May, I've had 50 4x6 prints made, mostly for greeting cards... Besides, if you keep your photos on the computer...
[Not meaning to pick on your post, but you just had a great quote for me to reply to:) ]
This trend of digital photography is starting to really worry me, but not for the reasons it might. People don't seem to print their digital pics out.
I'm a very casual (read: not very good) photographer and for the most part I take photos to remind me of places I've been, people I've met and experiences I've had. But they are all photo prints - I won't lose my photos if my hard disk crashes. And how much better is it to sit down with friends/family and pore over a photo album of your latest travels or relive old memories? OK, I'm getting sentimental, but you get my point.
Photos are virtually irreplaceable, yet countless people I know seem quite happy to leave their precious memories at the mercy of a computer hard drive.
"Aha", you say "I burn them all to CDR/CDRW/DVD/the-next-thing, so I won't lose them." But there have been several Slashdot topics in the past that have highlighted the fact that we are losing digital data because the machines we need to read them are all failing or are no longer produced.
Am I the only one who is worried by this trend? sigh... maybe I'm getting old...
Both titanium dioxide and titanium oxide would technically refer to TiO2. The "oxide" suffix is generally used for the most common ionic compound (with oxygen, obviously:) ), which is usually also when the cation (the positively charged 'half' of the ionic compound) is in the base valence state. For titanium this is +4, ie. Ti^4+, so you need two O^2- anions to balance it out.
The problem is that many metals, especially heavier elements, and the transition metals most of all, have multiple base valance states that are all very stable, so "XXX Oxide" could refer to any one of a huge number of compounds. Titanium, for example, is also common (and stable) as TiO3, TiO4, Ti2O3 and TiO6 (and some other, rarer versions) so you can see how it quickly gets confusing.
I'm not sure without checking which is the correct name under the IUPAC conventions (standards for naming chemicals).
That would be a hydrophobic coating. Hydrophilic attracts moisture.
the second part is mostly correct, but the secret of this coating according to the article is indeed that it is hydrophilic.
Purely speculating here, but...
What I find quite interesting is that a hydrophilic coating will actually attract water molecules to the surface, presumably adsorbed onto the surface by van der waals or hydrogen bonding most likely. Effectively, the adsorbed layer of water molecules would act a bit like a boundary lubricant lubricant, making it difficult for any dirt to stick to the window in the first place and therefore much more vulnerable to removal by rainfall... ?
But why the need for a titanium nitride coating???
sorry - gotta take issue with that one. Formula 1 is not boring - IMO of course!
The dominance of Ferrari (which most people cite as the reason that it is boring) is nothing new - McLaren, Lotus and Williams have all dominated the sport at one time or another. In fact, when McLaren had their ride height control technology they were untouchable and far more dominant over the rest of the field than Ferrari are now. Just because it is Ferrari all of a sudden everyone seems to be upset?
Technology is a part of F1 - always has been and always will be. Much of the tech that is in your everyday car now was originally developed for F1 (Honda's famous VTEC engines are a great example). It would not be going too far to say that R&D in F1 drives (heh) a lot of the automotive technology that is in your family car.
As a mechanical engineer I love the technology side of F1, but that is all useless unless the entire package performs well. Every single component - driver, tactics, pit crew, engineers, etc has to come together and make it work. And when something goes wrong, no amount of technology can replace a good driver.
I imagine yachting is much the same. Yes, there is a lot of technology involved (esp. in the construction and design of the hull), but you still need real people to make it work. Not that I'd watch yachting mind you - now there's a boring 'sport' to watch...:-)
I hope that the ANZACs will not mind if I borrow a famous line to remember the occasion of September 11, 2001. I have always thought that this simple phrase is one of the most moving and poignant ever uttered.
"Lest We Forget"
To all of those who knew people affected by the terrorist attacks on September 11 and the aftermath of that event - however small or great the bond was and whatever nation you come from - my greatest heartfelt sympathies go out to you.
It says a lot about this world when you compare the publicity that has surrounded Lance Bass with that of Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth, even accounting for the fact that Tito was the first. To their credit, at least those guys paid with their own money, and seemed to be taking the experience very seriously.
I've got no objection to space tourism if it's done sensibly - hell, if I had $20 million, I'd blow it on a trip to space without thinking twice.
I loved the simplicity of the original D&D system (basic, expert, etc version). AD&D was a good step up, but the entire alignment system bugged the hell out of me. Unfortunately I never found a satisfactory solution to it - it's tied to too many other things to completely remove it. I was brought back to AD&D by the Birthright campaign system though - that was a fantastic product; very, very mature by TSR standards.
Also played RM (the original edition, with all the companions), much more than DnD, and it's definitely one of the best systems out there. It is very complicated, but if you have a few people who know the frequently used rules well (and can help the newer players along), I think it's a pretty fast system. I love the detailed character development and tailoring of characters - far better than any other system I've ever played. And it really encouraged the non-combat aspects (skills) for characters because combat is so deadly, which really helped flesh out characters.
RM products seem to have all but disappeared, and there's very little resources on the web for it too. D&D (esp since WotC took over) seems to have become the Microsoft of the rpg world - a real pity IMO.
Yeah, just look at all of the neat things which Australia have are invent:
1. Shitty beer 4. Shitty beer
Based on what? sampling Fosters and XXXX? Hah - if you actually want to find a pub in Australia that serves that stuff, good luck to you. Know why that is? We don't drink it ourselves because it tastes like dishwater - we just export it to the rest of the world to keep up the image. If you want to try some decent aussie beer, I would recommend VB (Victoria Bitter), Crown Lager. I'm sure others will add to the list.
2. Crime
yeh, right. Forgot about the massive drug trade in eucalyptus leaves within the koala community
3. Stupidity
Very ironic considering the article you're posting under!
While most people think of air-conditioning as cooling the air in hot conditions, perhaps a more important role for it is in ventilation and climate control, particularly in high-rise buildings. You would probably be surprised at just how much of a large building is occupied by the systems associated with aircon (several floors, at the very least). Skyscrapers, and many other things such as commercial air travel, would not be feasible without air-conditioning.
I'm a mechanical engineer, and know several people who (used to) design industrial air-conditioning systems. It is an amazingly complex task, and one that is never really recognised, but boy does all hell hit the fan when it's not working!
disclaimer: I'm not a medical doctor, but am a researcher in bimechanics/lubrication of joints (in the body). I'll try not to ramble on too much !
To back up another poster - osteoarthritis is not confined to older people, though it is much more prevalent in older age groups.
Arthroscopy is a procedure which does not require the knee to be opened completely - much better for the patient (faster recovery, no general anaesthetic, etc) and a much simpler and cheaper procedure. You most likely hear about it with sports people who have damaged knees (cruciate ligaments particularly), and it is often used as an exploratory procedure so the surgeon can see exactly what is wrong inside the joint.
[Disclaimer: I'm talking mostly about NASA, but it applies equally well to any of the other space programs. Oh, and I'm not an American;) ]
From the original post: Perhaps a reevaluation of our goals in space, and what we are prepared to risk for the money, would be in order?
As a (possibly too enthusiastic) follower of the space program, this one sentence wonderfully sums up what is IMO the crux of the whole issue.
We all want to dream about humans going to space/moon/mars/beyond. Let's face it - the day a human steps onto the surface of mars is going to be one hell of an achievement. BUT we have to accept that space is, and always will be, inherently dangerous. People are going to die attempting to get to wherever it is we choose to go.
Are we prepared to accept this risk to attempt to go? The current political (and social I guess) climate says no - it is not politically acceptable for [US(A)] citizens to die (much like in modern warfare).
I am willing to bet if you did a survey asking people if they think we should send humans to Mars, there would be a resounding 'yes' vote. But if you changed that to "Do you think we should send humans to Mars if it costs $30bn" (which is a gross underestimate IMO) I'm pretty sure the response would be negative.
Joe Public says that everything must be done to make space travel safe. So the costs escalate because of all of the redundancy and safety required. Then Joe Public turns around and says "Wait, how can it possibly cost that much? You must be incompetent." and then the politicians are too scared to allocate the funding. Like it or not, politicians decide (NASA, ie. space) funding, and Joe Public influences the politicians. The current NASA administrator is an accountant who is more interested in counting cents than space.
I wasn't around to see man land on the moon, but I desperately want to see us send humans to Mars. If for no other reason than to show what we can achieve when we dream.
I guess the author of this post never played TIE Fighter on the PC. One of the most amazing games I've ever played, and I think my opinion matches the general concensus.
Ahhhh.... Tie Fighter
I had completely forgotten about it. It's one of the few games that I thought was worth the money that I spent on it.
And that includes the money spent on a new mouse after blasting away all those nasty rebels trying to do save the universe from my evil clutches.
Thank you for restoring those memories!
What about 'sentimental' data?
on
Digital Dark Ages?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's one thing to lose technical data, but what about all that stuff that's much more personal and is (will be in 10+ years) sentimental? Things like (digital) baby photos, personal e-mails, etc.
How many people have grandparents who still have a box full of all of the letters they wrote each other when they were younger? OK, a few people might still write the occasional letter to each other, but this is really a thing of the past. And you can't compare the personal effort that goes into actually writing a letter with an e-mail. Just the fact that someone has actually gone to all the trouble to write the letter out makes it infinitely more satisfying when you read it.
How many people in (say) 20 years will have an actual photo album with real photos in it? How many people do you know now that have a photo album you can't view without turning on a computer?
It think it will be in 20+ years when the current digital-data generation are older that these things will really start to tell.
The problem won't be solved by these high tech solutions which, while very ingenious, are too expensive for the countries to afford to use. Not to mention that they often require specialist operators, support crew, resources, transportation etc. There's also the issue of actually getting into the areas that need to be demined - especially in places like Afghanistan where the terrain is mainly mountainous (and much of the demining takes place on rocky mountain/hill sides where vehicles, even helicopters, can't go).
The main problems are not technological, but related to the local culture and geography.
It's the cheap solutions that the local deminers can be easily trained to use that will be actually used. I remember going to a talk on this subject (see link above) in which it was stated that the most effective and successfull demining tool is still the use of mine sniffer dogs.
Isn't the fact that no single nation on Earth can afford to develop a Mars mission a strong indication that it is massively impractical? Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years.
At the height of the Apollo program, it was costing every US taxpayer about 40c per day. That's simply staggering when you think about it.
At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?
The 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' argument I guess?? And one we could probably debate about forever. I don't think such a massive step like going to Mars (as was circumnavigating the world, and going to the moon at the time) will ever make sense, particularly financially.
Like someone else said - this is NOT something you can do yourself - the other side's lawyers will rip you apart. And if you do one single thing wrong, the entire contents of the computer may be inadmissable as evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
"Engineering is the art of modelling materials we do not wholly understand, into shapes we cannot precisely analyse so as to withstand forces we cannot properly assess, in such a way that the public has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance."
- Dr AR Dykes, in an address to the British Institution of Structural Engineers (1976)
"Engineering is a great profession. There is the fascination of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on the paper. Then it moves to realisation in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings homes to men or women. Then it elevates the standard of living and adds to the comforts of life. This is the engineer's high priviledge."
- Herbert Hoover, U.S. President (1929 - 1932)
The NYT article is called "Science's 10 Most Beautiful Experiments" (my emphasis)
... :)
M-M experiment may have been [very] significant and influential, but I wouldn't call it beautiful. Same with superconductors. Only my opinion of course
I've shot 8000 pictures since May, I've had 50 4x6 prints made, mostly for greeting cards ... Besides, if you keep your photos on the computer...
:) ]
... maybe I'm getting old ...
[Not meaning to pick on your post, but you just had a great quote for me to reply to
This trend of digital photography is starting to really worry me, but not for the reasons it might. People don't seem to print their digital pics out.
I'm a very casual (read: not very good) photographer and for the most part I take photos to remind me of places I've been, people I've met and experiences I've had. But they are all photo prints - I won't lose my photos if my hard disk crashes. And how much better is it to sit down with friends/family and pore over a photo album of your latest travels or relive old memories? OK, I'm getting sentimental, but you get my point.
Photos are virtually irreplaceable, yet countless people I know seem quite happy to leave their precious memories at the mercy of a computer hard drive.
"Aha", you say "I burn them all to CDR/CDRW/DVD/the-next-thing, so I won't lose them." But there have been several Slashdot topics in the past that have highlighted the fact that we are losing digital data because the machines we need to read them are all failing or are no longer produced.
Am I the only one who is worried by this trend? sigh
Both titanium dioxide and titanium oxide would technically refer to TiO2. The "oxide" suffix is generally used for the most common ionic compound (with oxygen, obviously :) ), which is usually also when the cation (the positively charged 'half' of the ionic compound) is in the base valence state. For titanium this is +4, ie. Ti^4+, so you need two O^2- anions to balance it out.
The problem is that many metals, especially heavier elements, and the transition metals most of all, have multiple base valance states that are all very stable, so "XXX Oxide" could refer to any one of a huge number of compounds. Titanium, for example, is also common (and stable) as TiO3, TiO4, Ti2O3 and TiO6 (and some other, rarer versions) so you can see how it quickly gets confusing.
I'm not sure without checking which is the correct name under the IUPAC conventions (standards for naming chemicals).
But why the need for a titanium nitride coating???
... that should have said titanium dioxide
bah
That would be a hydrophobic coating. Hydrophilic attracts moisture.
...
... ?
the second part is mostly correct, but the secret of this coating according to the article is indeed that it is hydrophilic.
Purely speculating here, but
What I find quite interesting is that a hydrophilic coating will actually attract water molecules to the surface, presumably adsorbed onto the surface by van der waals or hydrogen bonding most likely. Effectively, the adsorbed layer of water molecules would act a bit like a boundary lubricant lubricant, making it difficult for any dirt to stick to the window in the first place and therefore much more vulnerable to removal by rainfall
But why the need for a titanium nitride coating???
Go on, find an Australian to mod me down :)
... just used up all my mod points. And to think I could have used them for the purpose they were really intended. What a waste! :)
damn
... and I mean that: Formula One is boring.
... :-)
sorry - gotta take issue with that one. Formula 1 is not boring - IMO of course!
The dominance of Ferrari (which most people cite as the reason that it is boring) is nothing new - McLaren, Lotus and Williams have all dominated the sport at one time or another. In fact, when McLaren had their ride height control technology they were untouchable and far more dominant over the rest of the field than Ferrari are now. Just because it is Ferrari all of a sudden everyone seems to be upset?
Technology is a part of F1 - always has been and always will be. Much of the tech that is in your everyday car now was originally developed for F1 (Honda's famous VTEC engines are a great example). It would not be going too far to say that R&D in F1 drives (heh) a lot of the automotive technology that is in your family car.
As a mechanical engineer I love the technology side of F1, but that is all useless unless the entire package performs well. Every single component - driver, tactics, pit crew, engineers, etc has to come together and make it work. And when something goes wrong, no amount of technology can replace a good driver.
I imagine yachting is much the same. Yes, there is a lot of technology involved (esp. in the construction and design of the hull), but you still need real people to make it work. Not that I'd watch yachting mind you - now there's a boring 'sport' to watch
To all of those who knew people affected by the terrorist attacks on September 11 and the aftermath of that event - however small or great the bond was and whatever nation you come from - my greatest heartfelt sympathies go out to you.
It says a lot about this world when you compare the publicity that has surrounded Lance Bass with that of Dennis Tito and Mark Shuttleworth, even accounting for the fact that Tito was the first. To their credit, at least those guys paid with their own money, and seemed to be taking the experience very seriously.
I've got no objection to space tourism if it's done sensibly - hell, if I had $20 million, I'd blow it on a trip to space without thinking twice.
But let's not turn space into a publicity stunt.
... is being able to walk about to your backyard and watch launches.
you lucky, lucky, lucky son of a b*&$
Not quite like the Shuttle beautiful, but beautiful nonetheless.
aaaaaarrrggghhhhh stop it! Have you no heart?
I don't agree with your RM assessment, but this:
And I usually pick my friends first, then pick the RPG.
is fantastic advice. 'nuff said.
I loved the simplicity of the original D&D system (basic, expert, etc version). AD&D was a good step up, but the entire alignment system bugged the hell out of me. Unfortunately I never found a satisfactory solution to it - it's tied to too many other things to completely remove it. I was brought back to AD&D by the Birthright campaign system though - that was a fantastic product; very, very mature by TSR standards.
Also played RM (the original edition, with all the companions), much more than DnD, and it's definitely one of the best systems out there. It is very complicated, but if you have a few people who know the frequently used rules well (and can help the newer players along), I think it's a pretty fast system. I love the detailed character development and tailoring of characters - far better than any other system I've ever played. And it really encouraged the non-combat aspects (skills) for characters because combat is so deadly, which really helped flesh out characters.
RM products seem to have all but disappeared, and there's very little resources on the web for it too. D&D (esp since WotC took over) seems to have become the Microsoft of the rpg world - a real pity IMO.
trying .... to ....resist ....
I wish I was Australian.
That's just so you can be good at sport !
Yeah, just look at all of the neat things which Australia have are invent:
1. Shitty beer
4. Shitty beer
Based on what? sampling Fosters and XXXX? Hah - if you actually want to find a pub in Australia that serves that stuff, good luck to you. Know why that is? We don't drink it ourselves because it tastes like dishwater - we just export it to the rest of the world to keep up the image. If you want to try some decent aussie beer, I would recommend VB (Victoria Bitter), Crown Lager. I'm sure others will add to the list.
2. Crime
yeh, right. Forgot about the massive drug trade in eucalyptus leaves within the koala community
3. Stupidity
Very ironic considering the article you're posting under!
While most people think of air-conditioning as cooling the air in hot conditions, perhaps a more important role for it is in ventilation and climate control, particularly in high-rise buildings. You would probably be surprised at just how much of a large building is occupied by the systems associated with aircon (several floors, at the very least). Skyscrapers, and many other things such as commercial air travel, would not be feasible without air-conditioning.
I'm a mechanical engineer, and know several people who (used to) design industrial air-conditioning systems. It is an amazingly complex task, and one that is never really recognised, but boy does all hell hit the fan when it's not working!
disclaimer: I'm not a medical doctor, but am a researcher in bimechanics/lubrication of joints (in the body). I'll try not to ramble on too much !
To back up another poster - osteoarthritis is not confined to older people, though it is much more prevalent in older age groups.
Arthroscopy is a procedure which does not require the knee to be opened completely - much better for the patient (faster recovery, no general anaesthetic, etc) and a much simpler and cheaper procedure. You most likely hear about it with sports people who have damaged knees (cruciate ligaments particularly), and it is often used as an exploratory procedure so the surgeon can see exactly what is wrong inside the joint.
[Disclaimer: I'm talking mostly about NASA, but it applies equally well to any of the other space programs. Oh, and I'm not an American ;) ]
From the original post:
Perhaps a reevaluation of our goals in space, and what we are prepared to risk for the money, would be in order?
As a (possibly too enthusiastic) follower of the space program, this one sentence wonderfully sums up what is IMO the crux of the whole issue.
We all want to dream about humans going to space/moon/mars/beyond. Let's face it - the day a human steps onto the surface of mars is going to be one hell of an achievement. BUT we have to accept that space is, and always will be, inherently dangerous. People are going to die attempting to get to wherever it is we choose to go.
Are we prepared to accept this risk to attempt to go? The current political (and social I guess) climate says no - it is not politically acceptable for [US(A)] citizens to die (much like in modern warfare).
I am willing to bet if you did a survey asking people if they think we should send humans to Mars, there would be a resounding 'yes' vote. But if you changed that to "Do you think we should send humans to Mars if it costs $30bn" (which is a gross underestimate IMO) I'm pretty sure the response would be negative.
Joe Public says that everything must be done to make space travel safe. So the costs escalate because of all of the redundancy and safety required. Then Joe Public turns around and says "Wait, how can it possibly cost that much? You must be incompetent." and then the politicians are too scared to allocate the funding. Like it or not, politicians decide (NASA, ie. space) funding, and Joe Public influences the politicians. The current NASA administrator is an accountant who is more interested in counting cents than space.
I wasn't around to see man land on the moon, but I desperately want to see us send humans to Mars. If for no other reason than to show what we can achieve when we dream.
I guess the author of this post never played TIE Fighter on the PC. One of the most amazing games I've ever played, and I think my opinion matches the general concensus.
.... Tie Fighter
Ahhhh
I had completely forgotten about it. It's one of the few games that I thought was worth the money that I spent on it.
And that includes the money spent on a new mouse after blasting away all those nasty rebels trying to do save the universe from my evil clutches.
Thank you for restoring those memories!
It's one thing to lose technical data, but what about all that stuff that's much more personal and is (will be in 10+ years) sentimental? Things like (digital) baby photos, personal e-mails, etc.
How many people have grandparents who still have a box full of all of the letters they wrote each other when they were younger? OK, a few people might still write the occasional letter to each other, but this is really a thing of the past. And you can't compare the personal effort that goes into actually writing a letter with an e-mail. Just the fact that someone has actually gone to all the trouble to write the letter out makes it infinitely more satisfying when you read it.
How many people in (say) 20 years will have an actual photo album with real photos in it? How many people do you know now that have a photo album you can't view without turning on a computer?
It think it will be in 20+ years when the current digital-data generation are older that these things will really start to tell.
Some really good info about the real problems of humanitarian demining (during peacetime) here:
Demining Research at the University of Western Australia
The problem won't be solved by these high tech solutions which, while very ingenious, are too expensive for the countries to afford to use. Not to mention that they often require specialist operators, support crew, resources, transportation etc. There's also the issue of actually getting into the areas that need to be demined - especially in places like Afghanistan where the terrain is mainly mountainous (and much of the demining takes place on rocky mountain/hill sides where vehicles, even helicopters, can't go).
The main problems are not technological, but related to the local culture and geography.
It's the cheap solutions that the local deminers can be easily trained to use that will be actually used. I remember going to a talk on this subject (see link above) in which it was stated that the most effective and successfull demining tool is still the use of mine sniffer dogs.
Isn't the fact that no single nation on Earth can afford to develop a Mars mission a strong indication that it is massively impractical? Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years.
At the height of the Apollo program, it was costing every US taxpayer about 40c per day. That's simply staggering when you think about it.
At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?
The 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' argument I guess?? And one we could probably debate about forever. I don't think such a massive step like going to Mars (as was circumnavigating the world, and going to the moon at the time) will ever make sense, particularly financially.
This is exactly what my Uncle's company does - that data recovery, analyis and court/evidence presentation.
Check out DIBS USA (http://www.dibsusa.com).
Like someone else said - this is NOT something you can do yourself - the other side's lawyers will rip you apart. And if you do one single thing wrong, the entire contents of the computer may be inadmissable as evidence.