"Here is my suspected ulterior motive. This thermodynamic fallacy is exactly the same one that creationists use to deny the obvious explanation for why plants live and complex life evolved."
Methinks that you've let the cat out of the bag. Now the question is, was it (the cat) previously owned by Schrödinger ?
"Besides, I build my own system. I can build a screaming system for a little less than $800. Last time I check you can get a scrawny little eMac. Have nothing against the eMac but for $800? Can you say ripp-off?"
The five most important words in the above quote are '...I can build my own system.'
Given that my Grandfather was a Master Carpenter, and a contractor, and I worked for him every summer of my teens; I'll bet that I can build a house a for a *lot* less than you can buy one.
Methinks that you mean selenostationary (sp?) orbit. In fact only the L1, L2, L4, and L5 points could be considered selenostationary due to the influnce of the earths much greater mass in the Earth/Luna system.
Measures of torque, and work are often confused. To wit: Work is the dot product of force, and distance, whereas torque is the cross product of respectively distance, and torque. The appropriate way to distinguish between the two is that torque is in foot pounds, Newton meters, etc. and work is in pound feet, meter Newtons, etc.
"ut to be honest if Microsoft didn't give away the money, people would be crying and moaning about that."
Aheem!
The story is not about M$ giving away money, it's about M$ giving away software. The tax deduction that M$ gets is quite a bit greater that the cost to M$, so M$ (as usual) makes out like bandits. If M$ had been giving away cash it would be a different story.
You sir, are totally incorrect in the above statement. I now present you with a fuller posting of text of the letter from which I drew the quote.
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--35
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property **with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it** --www.m-w.com
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
"The WWI aircraft rotary engines were radials with the crankshaft mounted to the firewall and the propeller bolted to the block."
The problem that was experienced in WWI was one of cooling. Cooling was not a problem while the aeroplane was flying, when there was substantial airflow over the engine to provide cooling. Rather, when the aeroplane was taxiing or sitting still the engine of a conventional radial engine was subject to overheating as there was but little airflow over the engine, thus as radials are air cooled there was a considerable heat buildup.
The solution was to spin the cylinders of the engine in order to provide sufficient airflow to cool the engine.
Readers might wish to consult the following web site for more information on rotary radial engines http://www.angelfire.com/fl2/yspeed/ .
No, no! Contrary to popular opinion Mr. Fusion can not use regular garbage as fuel. It requires need a combination of cold cream and margarine to produce energy.
The Sci-Fi movie that I'd like to see is an adaptation of Larry Niven's "Ring World." After seeing the preview of Halo some years back at Macworld, I've always thought that the potential for the FX for Ring World is quite high. I believe that done right the visuals in such a movie would be completely stunning.
Re:What's blacker than black...
on
Blacker Than Black
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Humm....
It's obvious that it's highly non-reflective in the visible portion of the spectrum, the question is how "black" is it in other spectrum regimes. Is it equally black in the IR, and/or UV?
Also, remember that a good absorber is a good emitter.
"Two words for those that say I am wrong. "Superconductor Supercollider".
One word from some who says you're wrong... "Politics"
The real reason that the SCSC did not get funding is that it was going to be built in Texas. There was a MAJOR campaign by several states to get the SCSC. Texas won. The US House delegation from Illinois was VERY torqued off, as they felt the SCSC should have gone to Illinois. Specifically, they believed that Fermilab in Batavia should have been home to the SCSC. Indeed, they felt an entitlement existed for Fermilab to be the home of all major government funded research in high energy physics, and the only reason that Texas got selected as the final choice was "politics." The Illinois delegation were able to buttonhole members of the house with Luddite tendencies, and get their support to kill the SCSC along with other worthy research projects.
I'd point out that during the legislative session in which the SCSC, and other funding for important research was killed the usual partisan voting patterns in the US House were absent. The voting pattern was primarily alone 'pork barrel' lines. If a research project was in a members district, or nearby; the member voted for the project, otherwise the member voted opposition. Most members that voted for one project voted for most, if not all projects. The reason being that they would scratch the backs of other members with research projects in their backyards if they would in turn vote for a research project in your backyard.
It didn't help that the SCSC was going to be named for Ronald Regan, given that the House at that time was controlled by Democrats. The Bush (41st) administration blundered in trying to name it for Regan. If they had been smart they would have named it for some politically neutral individual, say a prominent physicist ala Fermi.
...would depend on what research I had going. I'd pay a heck of a lot if I needed Keck's 'Big Eye' to collect some data that would be critical to a thesis, dissertation, or if the research I was doing were a big fat hairy deal in terms of my career advancement; or cutting edge, exciting (astronomically speaking), etc.. On the other hand if I were just wanting to 'stargaze' I'd not be willing to spend much of anything.
"I don't think that theoretical/practical dichotomy applies just to Chinese students."
No question about that. The point of my post is that different backgrounds, including cultural ones, predisposes individuals to particular biases. My father being an aircraft mechanic exposed me to mechanical process at an early age, and continued to expose me to a rich technological experience through out my childhood, and into late adolescence. Thus, things mechanical, and electrical have never been much of a mystery to me. Certainly, I've never found technology, or science intimidating. On the other hand I've had to really put forth an effort to absorb mathematics. Thus, I'm good at the experiential/observational end of science, but often must struggle with the theoretical end.
Both parents of one of my good friends from my undergraduate days are mathematicians. My friend has always found that the mathematical end of physics to be a bit of a cake walk. He's also quite good at coding, but under no circumstance should he be left alone in a room with a soldering iron, nor should he be allowed under the hood of a computer, or car for that matter.
My only point with CGSs is that they seem to come from an environment that is much more akin to the one that my friend comes from that from the one that I come from. It appears to me that this environment is systemic in nature, and I believe that cultural proclivities are a substantial part of said environment. Further, I believe that physics departments can place to much emphasis on class room work. This over emphasis can lead to later bottlenecks in when it comes to competent research assistants. Science, and engineering departments need to take a balanced approach to both undergraduate, and graduate education. When they don't problems in the long term, and sometimes in the not so long term, develop. While book learnin' is not unimportant, but it's not an end all in developing scientist, and engineers.
After reading the NPG's License to Publish I believe that the author/s of articles submitted to NPG do not give up the copyright to the words, figures, and tables which were submitted by the author/s, but merely the copyright of the layout of the article published by NPG.
In other words you can take the words, figures, and tables that you submit, and rearrange them and then republish them, and be in the clear as far as NPG is concerned.
"Study finds drop in science and engineering careers among ***top*** college seniors." "...best young minds..."
On reading the article provided by the link on Science Blog I came to the conclusion that the problem is not with the number of American students that are going into the sciences, but rather that "top-students" i.e. Ivy Leaguers, etc. were not going into science.
I would argue that the author of the article has an unfortunate bias toward "elites." Now what I'd like to know is just what are the criteria for determining who the "top-students" are. My masters was done at a decidedly non-Ivy League university, Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas. While there, in the early 90s, the department chairman lamented that all the "top-students" that is to say the students with the highest GPA on graduation were all coming from the Schools of Education, and Business. He felt that the students that were majoring in math, physics, chemistry, etc. were getting short changed as their grades from curriculum filled with rigorous courses were having to compete with students that had curricula filled with much 'puffer' courses.
The point here is that if you're looking at a students GPA to determine who's the top students you're approaching the issue using a poor metric.
Tell some one you majored in elementary education, and they're likely not to me impressed.
Tell them that you majored in physics and they'll likely respond something like: 'oh, so you're a brain.'
Tell them you're an astronomer and they'll go: Whooa! Cool! If you're a reasonable good looking young feller, and the person you're talking to is a single young woman you're likely to be able to get a date. After all us astronomy dudes are soooo romantic --studying the Moon, the stars, and all.;)
An example for your further consideration:
Bill Mahr: Cornell Alumnus Spock the Baptist: An Aggie Who's the more impressive?
Now:
Bill Mahr: B.A. English Spock the Baptist: B.Sc. Physics, minor Mathematics Who's the more impressive?
You'll note that I've not include my M.Sc. in Physics, Thesis in Observational Astronomy in the just previous comparison. That just wouldn't be fair...;D
Slashdot Mirror
"Here is my suspected ulterior motive. This thermodynamic fallacy is exactly the same one that creationists use to deny the obvious explanation for why plants live and complex life evolved."
Methinks that you've let the cat out of the bag. Now the question is, was it (the cat) previously owned by Schrödinger ?
I'll respond to both Abreu & luzrek's replays with this post.
;D
"Unfair comparison. Building a house requires a lot more knowledge and a lot more work than assembling a computer."
I was not make a comparison, I was making an analogy. Youâ(TM)re trying to overextend the analogy.
âoeYou can buy a functional PC for $300(Walmart/northgate.com etc.).â
You can also buy a nice dog house for $300.
"Besides, I build my own system. I can build a screaming system for a little less than $800. Last time I check you can get a scrawny little eMac. Have nothing against the eMac but for $800? Can you say ripp-off?"
The five most important words in the above quote are '...I can build my own system.'
Given that my Grandfather was a Master Carpenter, and a contractor, and I worked for him every summer of my teens; I'll bet that I can build a house a for a *lot* less than you can buy one.
Schrodinger's Cat burgler
a.k.a.
Schrodinger's Cat burglar.
"Does that mean if you are observing the crime, then you are committing it yourself?"
No, no no!. You're thinking of Schrodinger's Cat burgler.
"...geostationary orbit around the moon."
Methinks that you mean selenostationary (sp?) orbit. In fact only the L1, L2, L4, and L5 points could be considered selenostationary due to the influnce of the earths much greater mass in the Earth/Luna system.
The previous should have read... ...is that torque is in foot pounds, *meter Newtons*, etc. and work is in pound feet, *Newton meters*, etc.
As I said it can get confusing! In SI units say it in Joules!
All right class, now pay attention!
Measures of torque, and work are often confused. To wit: Work is the dot product of force, and distance, whereas torque is the cross product of respectively distance, and torque. The appropriate way to distinguish between the two is that torque is in foot pounds, Newton meters, etc. and work is in pound feet, meter Newtons, etc.
"ut to be honest if Microsoft didn't give away the money, people would be crying and moaning about that."
Aheem!
The story is not about M$ giving away money, it's about M$ giving away software. The tax deduction that M$ gets is quite a bit greater that the cost to M$, so M$ (as usual) makes out like bandits. If M$ had been giving away cash it would be a different story.
Someone had to to make the pun...
You sir, are totally incorrect in the above statement. I now present you with a fuller posting of text of the letter from which I drew the quote.
Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson
13 Aug. 1813Writings 13:333--35
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property **with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it** --www.m-w.com
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181.
"The WWI aircraft rotary engines were radials with the crankshaft mounted to the firewall and the propeller bolted to the block."
The problem that was experienced in WWI was one of cooling. Cooling was not a problem while the aeroplane was flying, when there was substantial airflow over the engine to provide cooling. Rather, when the aeroplane was taxiing or sitting still the engine of a conventional radial engine was subject to overheating as there was but little airflow over the engine, thus as radials are air cooled there was a considerable heat buildup.
The solution was to spin the cylinders of the engine in order to provide sufficient airflow to cool the engine.
Readers might wish to consult the following web site for more information on rotary radial engines http://www.angelfire.com/fl2/yspeed/ .
"mattb@@@columbia...edu"
Why am I not suprised...
No, no! Contrary to popular opinion Mr. Fusion can not use regular garbage as fuel. It requires need a combination of cold cream and margarine to produce energy.
Ponds and Fleishman strike again!
The Sci-Fi movie that I'd like to see is an adaptation of Larry Niven's "Ring World." After seeing the preview of Halo some years back at Macworld, I've always thought that the potential for the FX for Ring World is quite high. I believe that done right the visuals in such a movie would be completely stunning.
Humm....
It's obvious that it's highly non-reflective in the visible portion of the spectrum, the question is how "black" is it in other spectrum regimes. Is it equally black in the IR, and/or UV?
Also, remember that a good absorber is a good emitter.
The subject says it all
How the heck did the parent get moded to a 5?
"Two words for those that say I am wrong. "Superconductor Supercollider".
One word from some who says you're wrong...
"Politics"
The real reason that the SCSC did not get funding is that it was going to be built in Texas. There was a MAJOR campaign by several states to get the SCSC. Texas won. The US House delegation from Illinois was VERY torqued off, as they felt the SCSC should have gone to Illinois. Specifically, they believed that Fermilab in Batavia should have been home to the SCSC. Indeed, they felt an entitlement existed for Fermilab to be the home of all major government funded research in high energy physics, and the only reason that Texas got selected as the final choice was "politics." The Illinois delegation were able to buttonhole members of the house with Luddite tendencies, and get their support to kill the SCSC along with other worthy research projects.
I'd point out that during the legislative session in which the SCSC, and other funding for important research was killed the usual partisan voting patterns in the US House were absent. The voting pattern was primarily alone 'pork barrel' lines. If a research project was in a members district, or nearby; the member voted for the project, otherwise the member voted opposition. Most members that voted for one project voted for most, if not all projects. The reason being that they would scratch the backs of other members with research projects in their backyards if they would in turn vote for a research project in your backyard.
It didn't help that the SCSC was going to be named for Ronald Regan, given that the House at that time was controlled by Democrats. The Bush (41st) administration blundered in trying to name it for Regan. If they had been smart they would have named it for some politically neutral individual, say a prominent physicist ala Fermi.
Mod the parent up! Please!
Valgor has been doing his homework...
"This is going to be the end of Star Trek! Maybe some of you will 'Get a Life' and try to persue (sp.) something meaningful!"
You mean "something meaningful" as in learning how to use a spellchecker?
...would depend on what research I had going. I'd pay a heck of a lot if I needed Keck's 'Big Eye' to collect some data that would be critical to a thesis, dissertation, or if the research I was doing were a big fat hairy deal in terms of my career advancement; or cutting edge, exciting (astronomically speaking), etc.. On the other hand if I were just wanting to 'stargaze' I'd not be willing to spend much of anything.
"I don't think that theoretical/practical dichotomy applies just to Chinese students."
No question about that. The point of my post is that different backgrounds, including cultural ones, predisposes individuals to particular biases. My father being an aircraft mechanic exposed me to mechanical process at an early age, and continued to expose me to a rich technological experience through out my childhood, and into late adolescence. Thus, things mechanical, and electrical have never been much of a mystery to me. Certainly, I've never found technology, or science intimidating. On the other hand I've had to really put forth an effort to absorb mathematics. Thus, I'm good at the experiential/observational end of science, but often must struggle with the theoretical end.
Both parents of one of my good friends from my undergraduate days are mathematicians. My friend has always found that the mathematical end of physics to be a bit of a cake walk. He's also quite good at coding, but under no circumstance should he be left alone in a room with a soldering iron, nor should he be allowed under the hood of a computer, or car for that matter.
My only point with CGSs is that they seem to come from an environment that is much more akin to the one that my friend comes from that from the one that I come from. It appears to me that this environment is systemic in nature, and I believe that cultural proclivities are a substantial part of said environment. Further, I believe that physics departments can place to much emphasis on class room work. This over emphasis can lead to later bottlenecks in when it comes to competent research assistants. Science, and engineering departments need to take a balanced approach to both undergraduate, and graduate education. When they don't problems in the long term, and sometimes in the not so long term, develop. While book learnin' is not unimportant, but it's not an end all in developing scientist, and engineers.
After reading the NPG's License to Publish I believe that the author/s of articles submitted to NPG do not give up the copyright to the words, figures, and tables which were submitted by the author/s, but merely the copyright of the layout of the article published by NPG.
In other words you can take the words, figures, and tables that you submit, and rearrange them and then republish them, and be in the clear as far as NPG is concerned.
"Study finds drop in science and engineering careers among ***top*** college seniors."
;)
;D
"...best young minds..."
On reading the article provided by the link on Science Blog I came to the conclusion that the problem is not with the number of American students that are going into the sciences, but rather that "top-students" i.e. Ivy Leaguers, etc. were not going into science.
I would argue that the author of the article has an unfortunate bias toward "elites." Now what I'd like to know is just what are the criteria for determining who the "top-students" are. My masters was done at a decidedly non-Ivy League university, Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas. While there, in the early 90s, the department chairman lamented that all the "top-students" that is to say the students with the highest GPA on graduation were all coming from the Schools of Education, and Business. He felt that the students that were majoring in math, physics, chemistry, etc. were getting short changed as their grades from curriculum filled with rigorous courses were having to compete with students that had curricula filled with much 'puffer' courses.
The point here is that if you're looking at a students GPA to determine who's the top students you're approaching the issue using a poor metric.
Tell some one you majored in elementary education, and they're likely not to me impressed.
Tell them that you majored in physics and they'll likely respond something like: 'oh, so you're a brain.'
Tell them you're an astronomer and they'll go: Whooa! Cool! If you're a reasonable good looking young feller, and the person you're talking to is a single young woman you're likely to be able to get a date. After all us astronomy dudes are soooo romantic --studying the Moon, the stars, and all.
An example for your further consideration:
Bill Mahr: Cornell Alumnus
Spock the Baptist: An Aggie
Who's the more impressive?
Now:
Bill Mahr: B.A. English
Spock the Baptist: B.Sc. Physics, minor Mathematics
Who's the more impressive?
You'll note that I've not include my M.Sc. in Physics, Thesis in Observational Astronomy in the just previous comparison. That just wouldn't be fair...