There are two projects I think are well suited for this purpose. A CC stripe reader or a SIM card reader. Both are very simple circuits, both require exactly one specialized piece of hardware (the SIM reader or the tape reader--and old cassette player head works fine). Both can provide data to the COM port to any computer, and need only very simple software to manipulate.
The problem with starting out with asm or C is that it requires you to talk about the machine. You need to lecture on the differences between the heap and stack, passing by value and reference, and with asm you need the segment and instruction explained before you can let them loose.
To introduce general programming, I'd suggest either Prolog or Scheme. Prolog may be the simplest to begin with, as it teaches variables, logic and flow control. Scheme increases the difficulty with flow control and looping.
I also second the suggestion for Lego Mindstorms as that gives a physical response to writing a program, but that may be too expensive for you course.
I would add that The Economist is also usually a very good source for science news, even though it doesn't come with the frequency or pagecount to warrent calling The Economist a scientific publication.
I would have to disagree. Science will continue in the US due to the excellent graduate programs, university systems, and corporate relationships between them.
And it will continue where ever it is unabetted by political--as opposed to any moral--influence. China for instance, has much too much political influence over their education systems to be the next springboard of discovery. As a result, Chinese students practically flee to the US after completing university. It is such a problem that in China, if one accepts admission to any graduate school within China all their identification will be seized by the government in an effort to insure you do not emmigrate. This does not help incubate a research community.
As for Europe, of course they are already sustaining a great research community,; however, governmental control is too prevalent to keep the top tier talent there. They simply can not pay enough to keep top tier researchers from emmigrating to US universities. And so their growth is not as great as in the US.
But if we are placing bets on the next large research community to complement the US, I'd have bet on India. IIT is producing, and attracting back to India, top tier talent.
Seeing as that your background is less than that of a math major, I would suggest you continue to pursue breadth instead of detph at this point. A undergraduate level text in graph theory or combinatorics would be a good choice for a next step, as would an introductory text on probability.
Once you see the major topics available and if you are still interested, then it is time to study a single topic from the undergraduate to graduate level.
Re:There is more on Earth than US
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 3, Informative
>Really ?
Yes. I provided an example by showing that a disproportional number number of nobel prize winners reside in the US. As another example, take the listing of the top universities in the world . In the top 10, only Oxford exists outside of the US. In the top 25, only 6 are outside of the US. In top 100, the US holds over 50% of the slots. One of the main reasons for this is the ability for the US to draw in the best talent in science and engineering from around the world.
>You mean like stem cell research ?
>Ummm....
Stem cell research is very active in the US. A simple google search would show you the research centers at NIH and University of Wisconsin-Madison . Even California is floating a $3billion dollar bond to support stem cell research. However, yes, the current ban on the harvesting of embroyonic stem cells is not doing much good to foster research in this area in the US.
>I've always thought it wise to actually do the thinking part *BEFORE* the speaking part.
I did not remember that quote, and I agree that it does color the essay more American-centric.
However, I do not think that changes the fact that the world is US centric, especially in R&D. That is not as much a "ridiculous" attitude as it is an observation of a well travelled son of an immigrant.
I'm glad you want your daughter to grow up in a safe and healthy environment. But I urge you to take a step back and attempt to reason out what it kind of effort it would take to change the world into the one you fear, and realize that it will *never* happen.
The thing is, without a mathematical framework in which you can examine a physical concept you have no way of truly understanding it. That is, no way of using that concept to make testable predictions.
I want to give an example of mathematics used in science without an equation (such as E=mc^2). Consider the simple concept of recessive and dominant alleles, labelled a and A for short, and sexual reproduction. A sexually reproducing organism has a pair of these genes, and they can come in three states; AA, Aa, and aa. Since A is dominent, its phenotype is expressed whenever it is present in the genotype of an offspring.
That is great an all for someone to see on TV, but does someone suddenly understand genetics when this concept is taught? I do not think so. I believe understanding comes from being able to use probability to calculate measurable predictions from this concept. For instance, calculating the probability of a recessive gene expressing itself in the offspring of two heterozygous parents (1/4). Or, more interestingly, calculating the equilibrium distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in the genotype of an entire population given that the phenotype does not interfere with sexual reproduction (the Hardy-Weinberg theorem).
Now we see that with mathematics the concept of genotype suddenly allows one to 'understand' genetics. That is, one can express it without ambiguity, extrapolate, prove theorems, test hypothesis, and *do* science.
The concepts that "mass is equivalent to energy" or that "there is an inherent uncertainty in the location and momentum of an object" are deep. However, one doesn't gain any understanding of them from repetition of them as statements in such places _The Elegant Universe_ or _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_. From those they only get definitions and weak generalizations that in no way allow the reader to predict what would happen in an actual circumstance. The best one can hope for from a reader of these texts is that their curiousity is piqued. But from a mathematical survey of those concepts, can one understand their implications. And it is only the ability to see those implications, and to derive them from their concepts, that is understanding.
Answering my own question the Ansari X-Prize webiste has a link to a September 29th live webcast of the launch. The link is in the top, right hand corner.
Currently, that link has videos of the other launches made by Scaled Composites. It looks like there is an external camera, a wing camera, and a cockpit camera. Hopefully they have all three rolling on Wednesday =)
Anyone know if the September 29th launch will be televised or webcast live? I think this would be great for Nasa TV, and I would enjoy it as much as sitting through the Spirit and Opportunity touchdowns.
I found this question interesting enough to do a quick search. This webpage states that it is not illegal as long as a professional can argue that the qualities measured by the test are in line with the qualities necessary for success in the position under consideration.
As a computer scientist, I would point to three things in my field that are huge conceptual breakthroughs:
1) The discovery of NP-Completenes by Cooke in 1971.
2) The development of probabilistic algorithms and methods. These are especially important in graph theory (e.g. Lovasz's Local Lemma)
3) The development of Quantumn computing and Shor's algorithm.
Each of these breakthrough's have developed their own field of study. However, one should always be aware that it will usually take at least one generation for a scientific discovery to be generally known to the lay public.
I think I understand your argument, but if so it doesn't hold.
Human flight was a problem that was worked on, if we take the myth of Icarus and Daedalus into account, for thousands of years before success. For more concrete dates, the Wright brothers were 400 years after Da Vinci's drawings of his flying machine.
Combustion engines, and their precursor the steam engine, were designed by engineers interested in motion, not thermodynamics. While Watt probably was very aware of thermodynamics, I doubt Heron of Alexandria was.
Pascal designed his difference engine long before anyone dreamed of QM or semi-conductor physics. IBM produced non-programmable computers for decades long before the first general purpose relay computers were designed. This fact however, may be irrelevant, since you probably meant that people didn't just go about designing transistors without advanced understand of electro-chemisty. But then the development of the chemical adhesive used in Post-It Notes went against the dogma of its time.
I believe the conclusion to be drawn, and is especially obvious from the history of flight, is that there is not a basic understanding of many hard problems at the time the first pioneers tackled the problem, there was only interest and hope. A basic understanding developed along side the experimental obvservations of these pioneers. And a deep understanding developed often only after success (the history of transistors necessitating the qualification). I see no reason why AI will not develop along this same path.
I respectfully disagree with the recommendation of the Feynman lectures for someone just beginning to learn physics. While the Feynman lectures are well written and full of interesting insights, I find that they are only useful as a refresher or study guide for someone who has a working knowledge of basic physics and calculus (equivalent to the first two years of a four year program).
The main problems are lack of detailed examples and lack of revision sets. Without detailed examples, it is hard to do anything useful with the physics presented. And without revision sets, there is no way to learn the physics or math presented except by rote. For instance, in the second volume, there is a lengthy discussion on statics. You will develop a feel for the material, but any attempt to work outside the problems presented will find you groping for a more detailed electrodynamics book that presents a somewhat algorithmic approach to the calculations involved. Afterall, if you can not understand and apply the mathematics invovled, you will not understand the physics.
I suggest anyone without a decent background would do better to pick up whatever textbook is used at their local university, and work through it first.
As an aside, I would have gladly paid $50 extra for my set of the lectures if the editors had included the problems assigned.
Theodore Gray and Jerry Glynn addressed exactly this topic in an introduction to The Beginner's Guide to Mathematica. They provide their argument in a readible, excited disucssion between Gray and Glynn that is quite readible. It also shows, very well I believe, just how difficult the problem it is to decide upon a ciricullum.
What is used by this group in determining this number? Is it simply the cost of the turbines, or is it TCO of the power production plant (land, taxes, maintenance)?
Also, it isn't mentioned on the site you linked to, but do you know what is the current price per kwH for coal, hydro, and nuclear power production?
Why should we go to Mars?
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Because space exploration is one of the few human endevours that can unite everyone.
My most vivid memory from childhoon is the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger. As a fourth grader, I had ditched English class and snuck into a a science class that was watching it live. On the other hand, one of my father's greatest memories is that of his entire small township gathered around the television in the local high school watching Neil Armstrong live on the surface of the moon. I wish I had the opportunity to partake in that feeling, instead of the tragedy which befell Challenger.
I think it is a noble goal to give this generation the same opportunity to experience the joy and pride America felt when Armstrong descended to the moon, and a manned mission to Mars is the means to do just that.
A word of advice for all you soon to be graduates.
If you enjoy programming, never take any job in the IT field outside of programming. When looking for an internship or a first job, never accept any system administration, product support, or, especially, testing position. Once you are in these positions and they appear on your resume, you are pigeonholed. When you send your resume to any company, they will see your experience and only consider that for you placement. For any company with an HR department, it won't matter that you aced assembly and compiler design, that you work on programming projects in your free time, or that you've memorized all three volumes of Knuth. The only thing that will matter is your previous work expereince.
Like the parennt poster, I wasted alot of time at the beginning of my career because I didn't know how the world worked. I got out in six months, but getting out required leaving the position instead of advancing in the company. I wish someone would have told me.
Compare Walter Rudin's _Real and Complex Analysis_ on Amazon and at Amazon.co.uk. In the states, only the hardcover is available at the price of $136.35. In the UK, a paper back version is available for 31.99.
The same is true of Richard Durrett's _Probability and Examples_. The US Hardcover is $115.95. The UK paperback is 37. Again, the paperback is not available at all in the states.
What is even more ridiculous is that every order I have made from Amazon.co.uk has arrived faster than any order, via ground shipping, from Amazon.com. And this is for shipping to the West Coast.
Claude Shannon was a great engineer and theorist. His seminal work, "The Mathematiccal Theory of Communication" created the field of information theory. Even though it was the first complete treatment of information theory, and is over fifty years old, it is still a good read for the mathematically inclined. You can obtain a reprint of this paper at the Bell labs website .
I believe the previous poster (Lord Ender) confused Fermat's last theorem with Euler's conjecture. The latter is that w^n + x^n + y^n = z^n does not have any solution in the positive integers.
This conjecture has been proven false for n 4; however, to the best of my knowledge, no one has produced any results for n > 4.
I just wanted to comment on the following quote in the header above :
he does raise the issue that if we gave these teaching positions the pay-level and respect they deserve it would be much easier to attract Doctoral-level people to fill them
I know a few experts in science and mathematics who have mentioned to me that they would be more than happy to teach middle school and high school; however the requirement by my state that all teachers have a teaching certificate keeps them out of the field.
IMHO, there is no reason a person who has spend 40 years of their life teaching calculus and higher mathematics should be forced to take child psychology courses and sensitivity training in order to prove to a state agency that they can teach. Retired programmers and electrical engineers have an expertise in their fields that I'm sure more than a few of them would be glad to pass along, even on a part time basis, but the requirement of a teacher certificate--and the hasssle and expense required to obtain one once you have already graduated--precludes them from this sort of activity. Activity that a few professionals I know would be happy to do on a volunteer basis.
Low pay is absolutely a factor in keeping people out of teaching. But the certification process (and the unions that create and support them) are creating unnecessary barriers to the field of teaching that is lowering its quality as well. These barriers are keeping older professionals from entering the field in deference to providing more opportunity to younger teachers who choose to get a teaching certificate along with their four year degree. Frankly, I would have preferred to take a course in calculus from a mathematician or biology from a retired M.D. than from a newly graduated layman.
Slashdot Mirror
That's correct. Lack of evidence isn't enough to disprove a theory; what you need is evidence that directly contradicts the theory.
We are approaching the point where the lack of evidence becomes evidence of non-existance. But as of yet, I know of no alternative theory.
There are two projects I think are well suited for this purpose. A CC stripe reader or a SIM card reader. Both are very simple circuits, both require exactly one specialized piece of hardware (the SIM reader or the tape reader--and old cassette player head works fine). Both can provide data to the COM port to any computer, and need only very simple software to manipulate.
The problem with starting out with asm or C is that it requires you to talk about the machine. You need to lecture on the differences between the heap and stack, passing by value and reference, and with asm you need the segment and instruction explained before you can let them loose.
To introduce general programming, I'd suggest either Prolog or Scheme. Prolog may be the simplest to begin with, as it teaches variables, logic and flow control. Scheme increases the difficulty with flow control and looping.
I also second the suggestion for Lego Mindstorms as that gives a physical response to writing a program, but that may be too expensive for you course.
I would add that The Economist is also usually a very good source for science news, even though it doesn't come with the frequency or pagecount to warrent calling The Economist a scientific publication.
I would have to disagree. Science will continue in the US due to the excellent graduate programs, university systems, and corporate relationships between them.
And it will continue where ever it is unabetted by political--as opposed to any moral--influence. China for instance, has much too much political influence over their education systems to be the next springboard of discovery. As a result, Chinese students practically flee to the US after completing university. It is such a problem that in China, if one accepts admission to any graduate school within China all their identification will be seized by the government in an effort to insure you do not emmigrate. This does not help incubate a research community.
As for Europe, of course they are already sustaining a great research community,; however, governmental control is too prevalent to keep the top tier talent there. They simply can not pay enough to keep top tier researchers from emmigrating to US universities. And so their growth is not as great as in the US.
But if we are placing bets on the next large research community to complement the US, I'd have bet on India. IIT is producing, and attracting back to India, top tier talent.
Seeing as that your background is less than that of a math major, I would suggest you continue to pursue breadth instead of detph at this point. A undergraduate level text in graph theory or combinatorics would be a good choice for a next step, as would an introductory text on probability.
Once you see the major topics available and if you are still interested, then it is time to study a single topic from the undergraduate to graduate level.
>Really ?
Yes. I provided an example by showing that a disproportional number number of nobel prize winners reside in the US. As another example, take the listing of the top universities in the world . In the top 10, only Oxford exists outside of the US. In the top 25, only 6 are outside of the US. In top 100, the US holds over 50% of the slots. One of the main reasons for this is the ability for the US to draw in the best talent in science and engineering from around the world.
>You mean like stem cell research ?
>Ummm
Stem cell research is very active in the US. A simple google search would show you the research centers at NIH and University of Wisconsin-Madison . Even California is floating a $3billion dollar bond to support stem cell research. However, yes, the current ban on the harvesting of embroyonic stem cells is not doing much good to foster research in this area in the US.
>I've always thought it wise to actually do the thinking part *BEFORE* the speaking part.
You obviously think one way and act another.
I did not remember that quote, and I agree that it does color the essay more American-centric.
However, I do not think that changes the fact that the world is US centric, especially in R&D. That is not as much a "ridiculous" attitude as it is an observation of a well travelled son of an immigrant.
I'm glad you want your daughter to grow up in a safe and healthy environment. But I urge you to take a step back and attempt to reason out what it kind of effort it would take to change the world into the one you fear, and realize that it will *never* happen.
The thing is, without a mathematical framework in which you can examine a physical concept you have no way of truly understanding it. That is, no way of using that concept to make testable predictions.
I want to give an example of mathematics used in science without an equation (such as E=mc^2). Consider the simple concept of recessive and dominant alleles, labelled a and A for short, and sexual reproduction. A sexually reproducing organism has a pair of these genes, and they can come in three states; AA, Aa, and aa. Since A is dominent, its phenotype is expressed whenever it is present in the genotype of an offspring.
That is great an all for someone to see on TV, but does someone suddenly understand genetics when this concept is taught? I do not think so. I believe understanding comes from being able to use probability to calculate measurable predictions from this concept. For instance, calculating the probability of a recessive gene expressing itself in the offspring of two heterozygous parents (1/4). Or, more interestingly, calculating the equilibrium distribution of dominant and recessive alleles in the genotype of an entire population given that the phenotype does not interfere with sexual reproduction (the Hardy-Weinberg theorem).
Now we see that with mathematics the concept of genotype suddenly allows one to 'understand' genetics. That is, one can express it without ambiguity, extrapolate, prove theorems, test hypothesis, and *do* science.
The concepts that "mass is equivalent to energy" or that "there is an inherent uncertainty in the location and momentum of an object" are deep. However, one doesn't gain any understanding of them from repetition of them as statements in such places _The Elegant Universe_ or _The Dancing Wu-Li Masters_. From those they only get definitions and weak generalizations that in no way allow the reader to predict what would happen in an actual circumstance. The best one can hope for from a reader of these texts is that their curiousity is piqued. But from a mathematical survey of those concepts, can one understand their implications. And it is only the ability to see those implications, and to derive them from their concepts, that is understanding.
Answering my own question the Ansari X-Prize webiste has a link to a September 29th live webcast of the launch. The link is in the top, right hand corner.
Currently, that link has videos of the other launches made by Scaled Composites. It looks like there is an external camera, a wing camera, and a cockpit camera. Hopefully they have all three rolling on Wednesday =)
Anyone know if the September 29th launch will be televised or webcast live? I think this would be great for Nasa TV, and I would enjoy it as much as sitting through the Spirit and Opportunity touchdowns.
I found this question interesting enough to do a quick search. This webpage states that it is not illegal as long as a professional can argue that the qualities measured by the test are in line with the qualities necessary for success in the position under consideration.
As a computer scientist, I would point to three things in my field that are huge conceptual breakthroughs:
1) The discovery of NP-Completenes by Cooke in 1971.
2) The development of probabilistic algorithms and methods. These are especially important in graph theory (e.g. Lovasz's Local Lemma)
3) The development of Quantumn computing and Shor's algorithm.
Each of these breakthrough's have developed their own field of study. However, one should always be aware that it will usually take at least one generation for a scientific discovery to be generally known to the lay public.
I think I understand your argument, but if so it doesn't hold.
Human flight was a problem that was worked on, if we take the myth of Icarus and Daedalus into account, for thousands of years before success. For more concrete dates, the Wright brothers were 400 years after Da Vinci's drawings of his flying machine.
Combustion engines, and their precursor the steam engine, were designed by engineers interested in motion, not thermodynamics. While Watt probably was very aware of thermodynamics, I doubt Heron of Alexandria was.
Pascal designed his difference engine long before anyone dreamed of QM or semi-conductor physics. IBM produced non-programmable computers for decades long before the first general purpose relay computers were designed. This fact however, may be irrelevant, since you probably meant that people didn't just go about designing transistors without advanced understand of electro-chemisty. But then the development of the chemical adhesive used in Post-It Notes went against the dogma of its time.
I believe the conclusion to be drawn, and is especially obvious from the history of flight, is that there is not a basic understanding of many hard problems at the time the first pioneers tackled the problem, there was only interest and hope. A basic understanding developed along side the experimental obvservations of these pioneers. And a deep understanding developed often only after success (the history of transistors necessitating the qualification). I see no reason why AI will not develop along this same path.
I respectfully disagree with the recommendation of the Feynman lectures for someone just beginning to learn physics. While the Feynman lectures are well written and full of interesting insights, I find that they are only useful as a refresher or study guide for someone who has a working knowledge of basic physics and calculus (equivalent to the first two years of a four year program).
The main problems are lack of detailed examples and lack of revision sets. Without detailed examples, it is hard to do anything useful with the physics presented. And without revision sets, there is no way to learn the physics or math presented except by rote. For instance, in the second volume, there is a lengthy discussion on statics. You will develop a feel for the material, but any attempt to work outside the problems presented will find you groping for a more detailed electrodynamics book that presents a somewhat algorithmic approach to the calculations involved. Afterall, if you can not understand and apply the mathematics invovled, you will not understand the physics.
I suggest anyone without a decent background would do better to pick up whatever textbook is used at their local university, and work through it first.
As an aside, I would have gladly paid $50 extra for my set of the lectures if the editors had included the problems assigned.
Other way around.
Windows to the Universe
or
PhysLink
Theodore Gray and Jerry Glynn addressed exactly this topic in an introduction to The Beginner's Guide to Mathematica. They provide their argument in a readible, excited disucssion between Gray and Glynn that is quite readible. It also shows, very well I believe, just how difficult the problem it is to decide upon a ciricullum.
http://www.theodoregray.com/BrainRot/index.html
That is a very interesting progression.
What is used by this group in determining this number? Is it simply the cost of the turbines, or is it TCO of the power production plant (land, taxes, maintenance)?
Also, it isn't mentioned on the site you linked to, but do you know what is the current price per kwH for coal, hydro, and nuclear power production?
Because space exploration is one of the few human endevours that can unite everyone.
My most vivid memory from childhoon is the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger. As a fourth grader, I had ditched English class and snuck into a a science class that was watching it live. On the other hand, one of my father's greatest memories is that of his entire small township gathered around the television in the local high school watching Neil Armstrong live on the surface of the moon. I wish I had the opportunity to partake in that feeling, instead of the tragedy which befell Challenger.
I think it is a noble goal to give this generation the same opportunity to experience the joy and pride America felt when Armstrong descended to the moon, and a manned mission to Mars is the means to do just that.
A word of advice for all you soon to be graduates.
If you enjoy programming, never take any job in the IT field outside of programming. When looking for an internship or a first job, never accept any system administration, product support, or, especially, testing position. Once you are in these positions and they appear on your resume, you are pigeonholed. When you send your resume to any company, they will see your experience and only consider that for you placement. For any company with an HR department, it won't matter that you aced assembly and compiler design, that you work on programming projects in your free time, or that you've memorized all three volumes of Knuth. The only thing that will matter is your previous work expereince.
Like the parennt poster, I wasted alot of time at the beginning of my career because I didn't know how the world worked. I got out in six months, but getting out required leaving the position instead of advancing in the company. I wish someone would have told me.
Good luck.
My experience with math texts.
Compare Walter Rudin's _Real and Complex Analysis_ on Amazon and at Amazon.co.uk. In the states, only the hardcover is available at the price of $136.35. In the UK, a paper back version is available for 31.99.
The same is true of Richard Durrett's _Probability and Examples_. The US Hardcover is $115.95. The UK paperback is 37. Again, the paperback is not available at all in the states.
What is even more ridiculous is that every order I have made from Amazon.co.uk has arrived faster than any order, via ground shipping, from Amazon.com. And this is for shipping to the West Coast.
Claude Shannon was a great engineer and theorist. His seminal work, "The Mathematiccal Theory of Communication" created the field of information theory. Even though it was the first complete treatment of information theory, and is over fifty years old, it is still a good read for the mathematically inclined. You can obtain a reprint of this paper at the Bell labs website .
I believe the previous poster (Lord Ender) confused Fermat's last theorem with Euler's conjecture. The latter is that w^n + x^n + y^n = z^n does not have any solution in the positive integers.
This conjecture has been proven false for n 4; however, to the best of my knowledge, no one has produced any results for n > 4.
-Stridar
The documents you are wondering about are here .
Have fun =)
I know a few experts in science and mathematics who have mentioned to me that they would be more than happy to teach middle school and high school; however the requirement by my state that all teachers have a teaching certificate keeps them out of the field.
IMHO, there is no reason a person who has spend 40 years of their life teaching calculus and higher mathematics should be forced to take child psychology courses and sensitivity training in order to prove to a state agency that they can teach. Retired programmers and electrical engineers have an expertise in their fields that I'm sure more than a few of them would be glad to pass along, even on a part time basis, but the requirement of a teacher certificate--and the hasssle and expense required to obtain one once you have already graduated--precludes them from this sort of activity. Activity that a few professionals I know would be happy to do on a volunteer basis.
Low pay is absolutely a factor in keeping people out of teaching. But the certification process (and the unions that create and support them) are creating unnecessary barriers to the field of teaching that is lowering its quality as well. These barriers are keeping older professionals from entering the field in deference to providing more opportunity to younger teachers who choose to get a teaching certificate along with their four year degree. Frankly, I would have preferred to take a course in calculus from a mathematician or biology from a retired M.D. than from a newly graduated layman.
-Stridar