I was disappointed by Tom's review, since it seemed to confuse one issue (which LCD monitors are the best within a specific class) with another (whether an LCD or a CRT is a better choice for a particular user). Aside from listing certain specifications, all it seemed to contain was a lot of subjective impressions with a negative slant, presumably because CRTs are the "better" product.
Believe it or not, display quality is only one consideration for someone considering the purchase of a new monitor. In my case, I bought a 17" Samsung 760V (1280x1024 native resolution, 16+ million colors, 160-degree viewable angle in both axes) a few months ago and have been nothing but thrilled. Form factor was the major consideration -- given the weight and depth of a 19" CRT, it would have to be placed in a position which would have forced me to turn my head roughly 40 degrees to the right...for hours at a time. With a 17" LCD, however, the viewable area would be comparable to a 19" CRT, but I would be able to place the LCD monitor directly in front of me on my desk. I don't do image editing, but I do spend a lot of time writing, so the ultra-sharp text display and eyestrain reduction far outweighed the color table limitations of an LCD. Finally, since my system had a decently powerful processor/RAM/video card combination, I didn't anticipate a problem running games at the native resolution. (My guess was a good one -- I have had no trouble running Max Payne and Return To Castle Wolfenstein with full detail without motion trails or image degradation.)
I did some research and took the plunge in the LCD market, but it would have been nice to have a decent side-by-side comparison article to read before buying. (I agree with the earlier poster -- in the store, the monitors are often running at a non-native resolution or are hooked to a computer with a terrible graphics card, making even an in-person evaluation somewhat misleading.) Sadly, Tom's article wouldn't have been helpful in the slightest.
As an amateur DJ (and mixtape maker ever since I got my first AM/FM radio/cassette combo when I was eight), this technology leaves me cold. The art of a good mix is to have a definite flow in mind beforehand. You lead your audience through a series of moods and textures and try to leave them thrilled with the journey. Remember -- if it was up to the crowd, they'd instinctively reach for the records they already have on their bookshelves at home, since that's all they know. A good DJ is a teacher, or a tour guide.
And, while I'm at it -- wristwatches for the biometry? They'd have better luck if they could embed the sensors in those glowing necklaces that the rave crowd always seems to be wearing...
And in a related story: the NYPD and LAPD have decided to start using Max Payne as a virtual reality training tool for rookie cops...
Mixed feelings.
on
Ultima Revived
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First of all, before the inspiration leaves me, someone ought to make a 3-D version of Archon. Heck, if you wanted to really jazz it up, you could go to a semi-FPS mode (like Max Payne) when your pieces were fighting -- you could use terrain to hide from the opposition and even out some of those mismatches. Plus, it would be great to see your wizard missing a basilisk with a fireball and accidentally torching a tree... Of course, it's another Electronic Arts game, so I can imagine the enthusiastic support the project would get.
That temporary fantasy aside, though, I'm not sure how much I support remaking classic games. I will always remember playing Archon against my sister on the PCjr for hours -- she got the joystick, and I got the keyboard, in an attempt to level the playing field -- with the crappy chirpy sound and the ugly CGA graphics. That was the game, and it was great despite all of that. The same goes for Bard's Tale, Lode Runner, Thexder, King's Quest, and all the other games that I remember from my youth -- the games are fixed in a personal and technological context that I can't remove.
Classic games, like classic movies, books, music, or any other kind of art, have both a timeless relevance and a historical context. The former explains why they have earned the appellation of "classic" -- they continue to find an audience. However, the latter is just as important, and it's inseparable from the other half. Can you imagine someone trying to rewrite The Catcher In The Rye because the language is dated, and Holden Caulfield doesn't sound like the kids these days? Or remaking Romeo and Juliet with guns and rock music? (Oops -- too late on that last one.)
I would like my kids (someday, when I have kids) to play the games that I played as a kid, both because they were fun, and also to get a sense of history. I don't want them thinking that technology started at a 1.4 GHz Athlon and went up from there -- I wish I could start them off with a TRS-80 Model I. I think that emulation projects are wonderful work, and wish that game publishers would legitimize abandonware and old ROM sets for the standup arcade games. But remakes, as impressive as they may be, will always leave me a little cold.
Don't be fooled -- the only reason that the current anthrax cases appear trivial is that the delivery system was extremely inefficient. An envelope full of anthrax would not be able to fatally infect more than a few people who directly handled the letter.
You're right -- if you are aware that you are exposed to anthrax right away, aggressive treatment with antibiotics for long periods (60+ days) is fairly effective. But the danger is that anthrax spores distributed as an aerosol would be invisible, scentless, and could travel for hundreds of kilometers. If the delivery vector was not something obvious (for example -- hang a spray device on the bottom of one of those blimps over a football game), the spores could be distributed without triggering suspicion. Now, instead of one or two people being exposed, you could have up to millions exposed. When the first cases were diagnosed as anthrax, it would already be too late for many of the others.
It certainly seems like everyone and their grandmother has an email account now (even if they don't have a computer or internet access in their home, an internet cafe or library or such near them almost undoubtedly does).
I don't know everyone, but I do know my grandmother, and she doesn't have an e-mail account. My mom has access to e-mail, but that's because my dad is nice enough to print it out and show it to her. Many people in this country either do not have basic computer skills to let them use e-mail, or even the economic status to allow computers to be an item in the monthly budget. Those of us who are debating this question need to realize that we are privileged.
Perhaps I have a Luddite streak in me somewhere, but I also have an irrational fondness for "old" media: LPs, newspapers, printed books. I suppose someday I can spend a Sunday morning at the local coffee shop reading over the electronic version of the Los Angeles Times on my Palm XVIII, but it won't be the same, and I will miss getting newsprint on my fingers. But I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way, and it will be used as justification to avoid change. E-mail has many advantages, but it belongs to a new generation, it seems. My mother might learn, but my grandmother never will.
There are actually government-approved products for automatic transfer of information from a low to high security environment. In general, these involve a "middleman" workstation running under a trusted operating system. The gateway machines to each network have privileges set so they can only read or write (as appropriate), and software on the middle system moves the data to the correct ingest directories. Data transfer from high to low always requires manual review. The "communication" is basically a file transfer, so a protocol such as TCP/IP which requires acknowlegement would not be possible.
I disagree with the statement "the fact that the high network wants certain data from the low network is sensitive itself." Please keep in mind that secure networks are found in secure areas, and interfaces are not in public view. The operators and maintainers of these secure systems are perfectly aware of the kind of data being sent -- it's the content of the data which exists at a higher level of security.
DoD classified networks never send classified information over the Internet per se, nor are they ever connected to any kind of unclassified network. There are approved encryption technologies for sensitive communications, but classified information must be transported in other ways from location to location.
For more information on DoD classified computer network requirements, read the Orange Book (which is available from several other places; just do a search).
Although the technology is certainly impressive, I have to wonder if this really would produce a better input device than the manual devices we now have:
Can it be used to input text more rapidly than a keyboard?
I doubt it. The example which comes to mind is how Palm decided to deal with the difficulties in handwriting recognition; that is, by devising their own alphabet and forcing the users to learn it, rather than designing software which attempted to understand each individual's idiomatic writing style. The designers of this glove interface would face the same decision -- and it's important to remember that many attempts at user-adaptive recognition have failed. So, assuming that users would have to learn a gesture alphabet to use the glove, how fast could they "type?" Although I've practiced Graffiti diligently, I seem to top out around the 30 wpm which Palm claims is the maximum. On the other hand, I can easily type 90-100 wpm on a keyboard.
Can it be more intuitive and/or more precise than a mouse?
Again, I doubt it. The screen, the tabletop that the mouse moves on, and the desktop software (X, Windows, Mac, etc.) are all designed for 2-D interactions. What's the use of having an extra degree of freedom with the controller? I'm sure that it would be possible to develop a 3-D desktop environment, but what about all of the 2-D standard applications? I doubt that I could get the same precision drawing objects in PowerPoint, for instance, using my whole arm (or at least my forearm) for hours a day than I can with a mouse. Fatigue would eventually cause a lot of inaccuracy.
Speaking of fatigue...will this input device be more helpful for avoiding repetitive motion injuries?
I'm not an ergonomics expert, but it seems as if you would be prone to repetitive motions of a different kind. Yes, using keyboards and mice for hours a day is a bad thing in the long run. But is trading carpal tunnel syndrome for, say, tendinitis in the elbow any better of a situation?
I'm sure there would be SOME use for this kind of technology. But I don't see it as being a wholesale improvement over current input methods for the kinds of systems we have. Although I usually hate to use the word "paradigm" in polite company, I think it's fair to say that our whole notion of computing is built on a "flat paradigm", for better or worse. Ultimately, we will have to design different displays and ways of thinking in order to restructure our interactions with computers. It will take more than a glove.
(Whew...got through the whole post without making one Michael Jackson joke...)
Actually, the tenor of the comments from the government these days seems to indicate that they almost feel forced to do something on a short time scale. It doesn't change the fact that there will not be a quick resolution -- or any resolution -- to this situation. But if there is not at least a first act in an American military response in the next week, I will be stunned. The people want someone else to hurt, right now, and too damn bad if it ends up being exactly the wrong move in the long run.
Politicians are professional poll puppets, and if 79% of the people want the U.S. to bomb Kabul, I'm sure the government will find a way to justify it.
The three main factors which cause spacesuits to be thick, bulky items:
Cooling. Spacesuits have a liquid cooling system as one of the innermost layers to keep heat from building up rapidly (and fatally) inside the suit. There is obviously a limit to how small those capillaries can be and still be effective.
Puncture resistance. The danger of suit integrity being compromised after falling or rubbing against rocks is something to consider. There is also the danger of being struck by a micro-meteorite, although it would be somewhat less likely on Mars than on the Moon.
Radiation resistance. Outside of the Earth's atmosphere, radiation intensity increases tremendously. Although some materials are better at stopping high-energy particles than others, they are also more dense, which defeats the idea of a skintight suit.
Also, don't forget features such as waste removal which add to suit size, though conceivably storage for that could be integrated into a backpack or other external unit.
Here are some reasons that cryptography is important -- some practical, some philosophical:
It is naive to think that the only people involved will be the intended recipients and government/law enforcement. The "feds" may have scruples about placing your private information in public view; other adversaries may not. You may not care about the FBI viewing your sexual fantasies, but how about a bored college student who cracks your message and posts it on Geocities for the amusement of his friends?
As you admit, there are some legitimate reasons to use encryption. If some messages are encrypted, but not all, an adversary can quickly surmise which people and/or groups are of importance to you. This information can be used to concentrate their resources to find out the information. In some cases, the mere fact that you are having an encryption-worthy conversation may be all the information needed to compromise what you were trying to keep hidden.
Most importantly, you posed the following question: "Is freedom so important that it overshadows all other values? If I am free to watch/read/say/eat/fuck/live [how] I want, is the loss of a little privacy really so critical?" Your freedoms are only ultimately guaranteed by a citizenry's ability to maintain a watchful eye on its government to ensure that those freedoms are being upheld. Words and ideas are among the most powerful things one can wield, and we must never lose our half of the balance of power if we wish to maintain our freedom.
Please research your history before making comments such as "this is Hiroshima ][:"
By December 1945, the total death toll from Hiroshima was approximately 140,000, with many thousands of others in the years to follow due to radiation-induced cancers and birth defects. Although the loss of life yesterday was staggering, it will likely be two orders of magnitude less. We should all be thankful that the incident yesterday was not a nuclear device.
Comparing Hiroshima to yesterday's incident on the basis of "surprise attacks" is misleading. We had finally recovered enough islands in the Pacific Theater to reach Japanese airspace and were in the midst of an aerial bombing campaign against many major cities. The only reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been excluded prior to the use of atomic weapons was as a means of determining atomic-bomb-specific damage. If the U.S. military had planned to perform an invasion of Japan, we would almost certainly have included Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the air target list.
Finally, we were explicitly at war with Japan, and although the massive destruction at Hiroshima changed the course of human history, the alternative would have been an estimated one million American casualties -- plus at least that many Japanese casualties resisting the invasion. The most troubling fact from yesterday is that we may indeed view it as a declaration of war -- but from whom, and with what goal in mind?
The comparisons to Pearl Harbor are closer to reality, but what comes next for the U.S. government will be unprecedented.
Reading over the experiments listed on the site reminded me of one experiment we did in honors high school chemistry which was NOT included. Our "teacher" was actually someone from the art department who was pressed into service as a chemistry instructor because he had a few chemistry classes in college. He walked in one day with a freaky, glazed look in his eye and announced to the class that we were going to be doing an experiment to start the day.
He went into the back room, came back with a pair of tongs and bottle of kerosene containing a chunk of potassium metal, and gestured for us to join him outside. We gathered around a large rain puddle from the previous day's storm, and he asked what class was in the room next door -- English, as it turned out. Without any additional explanation, he reached into the bottle, grabbed the chunk of potassium with the tongs, flung it into the puddle, and stepped back.
After a few seconds, the metal predictably exploded with a VERY loud bang, causing 35 English students to scream in unison and then rush to the window. The chemistry teacher stood there with a goofy grin on his face, and then shook his head and muttered to himself, "Yup...it's exothermic all right."
(For those who read the article, he also did the thermite experiment during the year, but put about three times the recommended amount of magnesium in each student's setup. There were metal chunks in the ceiling tile for years afterwards...)
Slashdot Mirror
I was disappointed by Tom's review, since it seemed to confuse one issue (which LCD monitors are the best within a specific class) with another (whether an LCD or a CRT is a better choice for a particular user). Aside from listing certain specifications, all it seemed to contain was a lot of subjective impressions with a negative slant, presumably because CRTs are the "better" product.
Believe it or not, display quality is only one consideration for someone considering the purchase of a new monitor. In my case, I bought a 17" Samsung 760V (1280x1024 native resolution, 16+ million colors, 160-degree viewable angle in both axes) a few months ago and have been nothing but thrilled. Form factor was the major consideration -- given the weight and depth of a 19" CRT, it would have to be placed in a position which would have forced me to turn my head roughly 40 degrees to the right...for hours at a time. With a 17" LCD, however, the viewable area would be comparable to a 19" CRT, but I would be able to place the LCD monitor directly in front of me on my desk. I don't do image editing, but I do spend a lot of time writing, so the ultra-sharp text display and eyestrain reduction far outweighed the color table limitations of an LCD. Finally, since my system had a decently powerful processor/RAM/video card combination, I didn't anticipate a problem running games at the native resolution. (My guess was a good one -- I have had no trouble running Max Payne and Return To Castle Wolfenstein with full detail without motion trails or image degradation.)
I did some research and took the plunge in the LCD market, but it would have been nice to have a decent side-by-side comparison article to read before buying. (I agree with the earlier poster -- in the store, the monitors are often running at a non-native resolution or are hooked to a computer with a terrible graphics card, making even an in-person evaluation somewhat misleading.) Sadly, Tom's article wouldn't have been helpful in the slightest.
...since most DJs I know spin vinyl, not MP3s.
As an amateur DJ (and mixtape maker ever since I got my first AM/FM radio/cassette combo when I was eight), this technology leaves me cold. The art of a good mix is to have a definite flow in mind beforehand. You lead your audience through a series of moods and textures and try to leave them thrilled with the journey. Remember -- if it was up to the crowd, they'd instinctively reach for the records they already have on their bookshelves at home, since that's all they know. A good DJ is a teacher, or a tour guide.
And, while I'm at it -- wristwatches for the biometry? They'd have better luck if they could embed the sensors in those glowing necklaces that the rave crowd always seems to be wearing...
And in a related story: the NYPD and LAPD have decided to start using Max Payne as a virtual reality training tool for rookie cops...
First of all, before the inspiration leaves me, someone ought to make a 3-D version of Archon. Heck, if you wanted to really jazz it up, you could go to a semi-FPS mode (like Max Payne) when your pieces were fighting -- you could use terrain to hide from the opposition and even out some of those mismatches. Plus, it would be great to see your wizard missing a basilisk with a fireball and accidentally torching a tree... Of course, it's another Electronic Arts game, so I can imagine the enthusiastic support the project would get.
That temporary fantasy aside, though, I'm not sure how much I support remaking classic games. I will always remember playing Archon against my sister on the PCjr for hours -- she got the joystick, and I got the keyboard, in an attempt to level the playing field -- with the crappy chirpy sound and the ugly CGA graphics. That was the game, and it was great despite all of that. The same goes for Bard's Tale, Lode Runner, Thexder, King's Quest, and all the other games that I remember from my youth -- the games are fixed in a personal and technological context that I can't remove.
Classic games, like classic movies, books, music, or any other kind of art, have both a timeless relevance and a historical context. The former explains why they have earned the appellation of "classic" -- they continue to find an audience. However, the latter is just as important, and it's inseparable from the other half. Can you imagine someone trying to rewrite The Catcher In The Rye because the language is dated, and Holden Caulfield doesn't sound like the kids these days? Or remaking Romeo and Juliet with guns and rock music? (Oops -- too late on that last one.)
I would like my kids (someday, when I have kids) to play the games that I played as a kid, both because they were fun, and also to get a sense of history. I don't want them thinking that technology started at a 1.4 GHz Athlon and went up from there -- I wish I could start them off with a TRS-80 Model I. I think that emulation projects are wonderful work, and wish that game publishers would legitimize abandonware and old ROM sets for the standup arcade games. But remakes, as impressive as they may be, will always leave me a little cold.
I think the designers of this robot cat ought to integrate the AI portion into the Real Doll...
(Insert your own joke here.)
Don't be fooled -- the only reason that the current anthrax cases appear trivial is that the delivery system was extremely inefficient. An envelope full of anthrax would not be able to fatally infect more than a few people who directly handled the letter.
You're right -- if you are aware that you are exposed to anthrax right away, aggressive treatment with antibiotics for long periods (60+ days) is fairly effective. But the danger is that anthrax spores distributed as an aerosol would be invisible, scentless, and could travel for hundreds of kilometers. If the delivery vector was not something obvious (for example -- hang a spray device on the bottom of one of those blimps over a football game), the spores could be distributed without triggering suspicion. Now, instead of one or two people being exposed, you could have up to millions exposed. When the first cases were diagnosed as anthrax, it would already be too late for many of the others.
Perhaps I have a Luddite streak in me somewhere, but I also have an irrational fondness for "old" media: LPs, newspapers, printed books. I suppose someday I can spend a Sunday morning at the local coffee shop reading over the electronic version of the Los Angeles Times on my Palm XVIII, but it won't be the same, and I will miss getting newsprint on my fingers. But I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way, and it will be used as justification to avoid change. E-mail has many advantages, but it belongs to a new generation, it seems. My mother might learn, but my grandmother never will.
- There are actually government-approved products for automatic transfer of information from a low to high security environment. In general, these involve a "middleman" workstation running under a trusted operating system. The gateway machines to each network have privileges set so they can only read or write (as appropriate), and software on the middle system moves the data to the correct ingest directories. Data transfer from high to low always requires manual review. The "communication" is basically a file transfer, so a protocol such as TCP/IP which requires acknowlegement would not be possible.
- I disagree with the statement "the fact that the high network wants certain data from the low network is sensitive itself." Please keep in mind that secure networks are found in secure areas, and interfaces are not in public view. The operators and maintainers of these secure systems are perfectly aware of the kind of data being sent -- it's the content of the data which exists at a higher level of security.
- DoD classified networks never send classified information over the Internet per se, nor are they ever connected to any kind of unclassified network. There are approved encryption technologies for sensitive communications, but classified information must be transported in other ways from location to location.
For more information on DoD classified computer network requirements, read the Orange Book (which is available from several other places; just do a search).Although the technology is certainly impressive, I have to wonder if this really would produce a better input device than the manual devices we now have:
Can it be used to input text more rapidly than a keyboard?
I doubt it. The example which comes to mind is how Palm decided to deal with the difficulties in handwriting recognition; that is, by devising their own alphabet and forcing the users to learn it, rather than designing software which attempted to understand each individual's idiomatic writing style. The designers of this glove interface would face the same decision -- and it's important to remember that many attempts at user-adaptive recognition have failed. So, assuming that users would have to learn a gesture alphabet to use the glove, how fast could they "type?" Although I've practiced Graffiti diligently, I seem to top out around the 30 wpm which Palm claims is the maximum. On the other hand, I can easily type 90-100 wpm on a keyboard.
Can it be more intuitive and/or more precise than a mouse?
Again, I doubt it. The screen, the tabletop that the mouse moves on, and the desktop software (X, Windows, Mac, etc.) are all designed for 2-D interactions. What's the use of having an extra degree of freedom with the controller? I'm sure that it would be possible to develop a 3-D desktop environment, but what about all of the 2-D standard applications? I doubt that I could get the same precision drawing objects in PowerPoint, for instance, using my whole arm (or at least my forearm) for hours a day than I can with a mouse. Fatigue would eventually cause a lot of inaccuracy.
Speaking of fatigue...will this input device be more helpful for avoiding repetitive motion injuries?
I'm not an ergonomics expert, but it seems as if you would be prone to repetitive motions of a different kind. Yes, using keyboards and mice for hours a day is a bad thing in the long run. But is trading carpal tunnel syndrome for, say, tendinitis in the elbow any better of a situation?
I'm sure there would be SOME use for this kind of technology. But I don't see it as being a wholesale improvement over current input methods for the kinds of systems we have. Although I usually hate to use the word "paradigm" in polite company, I think it's fair to say that our whole notion of computing is built on a "flat paradigm", for better or worse. Ultimately, we will have to design different displays and ways of thinking in order to restructure our interactions with computers. It will take more than a glove.
(Whew...got through the whole post without making one Michael Jackson joke...)
Finally -- the hacker equivalent of the Jedi mind trick!
Actually, the tenor of the comments from the government these days seems to indicate that they almost feel forced to do something on a short time scale. It doesn't change the fact that there will not be a quick resolution -- or any resolution -- to this situation. But if there is not at least a first act in an American military response in the next week, I will be stunned. The people want someone else to hurt, right now, and too damn bad if it ends up being exactly the wrong move in the long run.
Politicians are professional poll puppets, and if 79% of the people want the U.S. to bomb Kabul, I'm sure the government will find a way to justify it.
- Cooling. Spacesuits have a liquid cooling system as one of the innermost layers to keep heat from building up rapidly (and fatally) inside the suit. There is obviously a limit to how small those capillaries can be and still be effective.
- Puncture resistance. The danger of suit integrity being compromised after falling or rubbing against rocks is something to consider. There is also the danger of being struck by a micro-meteorite, although it would be somewhat less likely on Mars than on the Moon.
- Radiation resistance. Outside of the Earth's atmosphere, radiation intensity increases tremendously. Although some materials are better at stopping high-energy particles than others, they are also more dense, which defeats the idea of a skintight suit.
Also, don't forget features such as waste removal which add to suit size, though conceivably storage for that could be integrated into a backpack or other external unit.As already pointed out, the word you probably meant was "steganography," not "stenography."
Then again, given the sorry state of my handwriting after so many years of using a keyboard, I bet I could give the NSA a run for their money...
- By December 1945, the total death toll from Hiroshima was approximately 140,000, with many thousands of others in the years to follow due to radiation-induced cancers and birth defects. Although the loss of life yesterday was staggering, it will likely be two orders of magnitude less. We should all be thankful that the incident yesterday was not a nuclear device.
- Comparing Hiroshima to yesterday's incident on the basis of "surprise attacks" is misleading. We had finally recovered enough islands in the Pacific Theater to reach Japanese airspace and were in the midst of an aerial bombing campaign against many major cities. The only reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been excluded prior to the use of atomic weapons was as a means of determining atomic-bomb-specific damage. If the U.S. military had planned to perform an invasion of Japan, we would almost certainly have included Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the air target list.
- Finally, we were explicitly at war with Japan, and although the massive destruction at Hiroshima changed the course of human history, the alternative would have been an estimated one million American casualties -- plus at least that many Japanese casualties resisting the invasion. The most troubling fact from yesterday is that we may indeed view it as a declaration of war -- but from whom, and with what goal in mind?
The comparisons to Pearl Harbor are closer to reality, but what comes next for the U.S. government will be unprecedented.Reading over the experiments listed on the site reminded me of one experiment we did in honors high school chemistry which was NOT included. Our "teacher" was actually someone from the art department who was pressed into service as a chemistry instructor because he had a few chemistry classes in college. He walked in one day with a freaky, glazed look in his eye and announced to the class that we were going to be doing an experiment to start the day. He went into the back room, came back with a pair of tongs and bottle of kerosene containing a chunk of potassium metal, and gestured for us to join him outside. We gathered around a large rain puddle from the previous day's storm, and he asked what class was in the room next door -- English, as it turned out. Without any additional explanation, he reached into the bottle, grabbed the chunk of potassium with the tongs, flung it into the puddle, and stepped back. After a few seconds, the metal predictably exploded with a VERY loud bang, causing 35 English students to scream in unison and then rush to the window. The chemistry teacher stood there with a goofy grin on his face, and then shook his head and muttered to himself, "Yup...it's exothermic all right." (For those who read the article, he also did the thermite experiment during the year, but put about three times the recommended amount of magnesium in each student's setup. There were metal chunks in the ceiling tile for years afterwards...)