This lists, like the above post, gravitational lensing, gravitational timeshift, shapiro time delay, and precession.
I probably shouldn't have said 'little', perhaps I meant less, that is, less than the experimental evidence for quantum tunnelling, wave-particle duality, the second law of thermodynamics, but as the parent said quite correctly, that is entirely a matter of opinion, and I appreciate that comment. After all, what is the relevance of a 'lot' of proof, or a 'little' proof, if something is proven.
I 'invoke' string theory, because I think it holds too high a place in TOE study, and within mathematical physics in general. People have to spend many years gaining competence in all the areas which string theory covers, and are unable to specialise in any one of these areas. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, as it was irrelevant - what I was trying to say was that there are certainly some branches of physics, or more precisely mathematics, that are very hard to find observable evidence for.
What factory should I go back to? Are you a gifted and talented chest-beating theoretical physicist? are you trying to be the creator of GUT? In my experience cosmology and GR attract a lot of arrogant physics undergraduates, who think their problem of universe origin is the most important problem of all.
Then again, physics students in general could be said to be arrogant, and it helps to study something that you think is genuinely important, so what's the loss?
take home message: first poster - left me informed, humbled, you - left me thinking you are a physics major worth little salt.
Still, the original post has merit. They haven't detected a WIMP particle within the sensitivity of the original experimental device, and now they want to make it bigger. What if they still don't register WIMP events? Why didn't they make detector big enough in the first place? One could easily say 'they couldn't know how big it needed to be until they built it', but you can't endlessly get grants for 'bigger', you also need 'smarter'. They should also be looking at different experimental methods. An example of great experimental physics is the Neutrino Detection Facility at
Kamiokande(Nobel Prize 2002)
GR is perhaps the most well-tested physical theory yet developed and, as such, you can't say that it's "wrong".
This seems patently false. Quantum mechanics is ugly as all hell, but has a lot of observable physical evidence that verifies it. General Relativity is mathematically quite elegant, yet there is little physical observable evidence to verify it. We have the precession of Mercury, and some other small things, but nowhere near the wealth of experimental data we have that verifies quantum mechanics.
I think GR is very much a correct theory, but things like pre-inflation cosmology, and string theory, which are more based on the elegance and beauty of the mathematics involved, I have a harder time considering proved, or even to some extent considering if we will ever have the experimental capacity to prove them.
I don't think many people, especially in the field of GR, would disagree with your statement that GR is "the most well-tested physical theory yet developed". One only has to look at it's brother, Special Relativity, to see a theory which has been much more thoroughly tested.
We learn best when we play, but many U.'s regiment of homework is like a whipping stick, all boring, all work, 100% chore and no learning or play is involved, but usually all memorization and other kinds of rote.
Whilst I think this is prevalent everywhere, I think in particular it is a symptom of university in the US.
My experience in the US was that there was weekly homework, and the whip was constantly cracked. Longer assignments, and self-pressure from the student was mostly absent [in undergraduate study].
However, things are different in different countries, as you pointed out with Russian education. In UK/Aus/NZ there is a lot less emphasis on homework, more emphasis on exams, and perhaps 2-3 assignments in a semester. It's why nearly every american exchange student who comes to one of those countries can't believe no-one is forcing him/her to do work, so does almost nothing until the last minute. The other problem with the US system, is that it encourages students to believe there is always an answer if they just work hard enough, which may not necessarily be true.
However, US students on the whole, after 4 years, have a far better grasp of the skills, and imho it's very hard to learn maths without having done a shitload of problems.
There are certainly universities in the US where undergraduates construct proofs and learn proofs. In fact, I can't believe there are Tertiary mathematics courses that don't have some course in analysis/algebra that involves proof.
There is way too much garbage being studied in English. Who cares if it's considered 'classic' by some crusty old farts from 100 years ago? Is it interesting and relevant today? Why not let me discover it on my own and not shove it down my throat?
The thing is, if you choose to study a course on John Donne, then you have to expect them to shove John Donne down your throat. This is not a good example, but I guess the point of a well taught course is to show the inherent worth in the subject, and to arouse interest in the students. So if something appears useless and 100 years old, hopefully, if taught by a good prof, not by those, as you say "who don't care", then they should show you why the study of that 100 year old 'classic' is worthwhile.
It is unfortunate you have had such a shit run of the college experience. All I can say is that even if you are at a shit institution, you get out what you put in. The research you wanted to do, but were told you didn't have the prerequisite, perhaps if you went back and put your case forward, like you did above, namely that you feel you have the necessary knowledge, and are willing to pay the financial and academic cost of failure, they hopefully would see reason and let you in.
I agree with most of what you have said, but I don't see how applying free market theory to universities, will solve the problem you outline?
If Universities are to be run as economic units, then it is in their interest to offer low cost, high fee courses, for instance, law, which requires very few resources to teach, but charges high fees. Why are they going to run courses that require even more equipment, eg veterinary science or medicine? You could make those courses more expensive, as they have a higher earning potential, but then so does law.
I think universities need to be stripped down - most subjects could take place at a technical institute. I'd love to see Law and Medicine be taught as a trade, but realistically the first thing that needs to change is society's placing of prestige upon those fields. If the study of philosophy, for example, was regarded as prestigious, even though low-paying, it would still attract high quality students.
IMHO, Law and Medicine are trades - certainly medicine is mostly memorising symptomatic flow charts, ie if this, then this, then this, then this, and then experience having seen illnesses/ performed surgery. I think in theory it is the same as being an aviation mechanic or any form of repairer.
Most of the time spent on your undergraduate degree is spent learning how to learn, and learning some of the basic nomenclature and skills that will help you day to day while doing your PhD. You will always have to learn more stuff while doing your PhD, and there will probably always be stuff that you learnt, that you never use.
It would be entirely possible to start doing 'PhD Level Research' after one or two years of university, but you might not be doing high quality. Certainly, I think you will be a better PhD candidate if you do a range of courses as an undergraduate, to give you more tools, and also do some undergraduate research programmes, ie 1-2 semesters. This will help you see how research works, and what happens on a day to day basis. It will give you some practice in directing yourself, and start teaching you how to solve original problems.
It doesn't take a 4 year degree to be a researcher. But to be a good researcher, it helps to have spent 3-4 years in a strong academic environment.
If you are earning $140k a year, then unless you have a family, that is a lot of money. You can rent in/around the bay area for $650 a month, look at craigslist.
http://www.craigslist.org/roo/
You don't need a good car, you can get a shit car, again look at craigslist: ($1500)
http://www.craigslist.org/eby/car/29280824.html
So why are you even looking at buying property? You can live for 10 years, probably meet more exciting people, and save enough to live in Thailand for about 50 years. Or the midwest, whatever you prefer.
I'm never satisfied seeing people saying I earn 100k, but that's not much here with cost of living. Do you remember before you earnt that much? Do you remember living adequately? Plenty of people survive on less. You could do more than survive - survive and have fun.
This seems like insanity. The reason you can get good return for making superannuation or retirement payments when your 20 is because you are taking a bigger risk. Anything could happen in 40 years, including your death which would leave you shit out of luck. Investing money is fine, but saving for your retirement when you have just entered the workforce... doesn't that make anyone else want to slit their wrists?
And besides, $100 a month is not small change, you can do a hell of a lot with that, like learning/playing new sports, getting skills, getting out hiking/mountain biking/climbing, even just buying a shovel and hitting yourself in the head with it twice a day.
You could even argue the diverse skill set, and actually having hobbies that weren't open source could increase your value to an employer.
Correct. When a collegue of Einstein's suggested that it was impossible for an object with mass to reach light speed, Einstein felt compelled to point out that a photon has mass and it travels at light speed.
Photon's have zero rest mass. The only mass they have is a relativistic consequence of their velocity.
The problem I think lies in the fact that in most industries paying minimum wage, ie unskilled labour, there is a far higher supply of employment, than employers. Mandatory minimum wage laws are of little impact to people being paid well above the minimum wage, and I think with most unskilled labour, if not all, there is a far greater supply of people who want jobs than there are employers.
If there is a mandatory minimum wage, and the job is necessary, and it takes 100 people to do the job, then 100 people will be employed at minimum wage rates. If there is no minimum wage, then these people will be paid 'what the market can bear', which might be very low. Ultimately, there will not be any more or less people out of a job, just 100 people with more money to buy food and support families.
Mathematics is one of the most intensely human of human endeavours. Everything in it is a production of the human mind entirely.
This is a fairly nonsensical statement. Everything inside of human thought processes, or sentience, is a very intensely human endeavour. Why is mathematics a more intensely human endeavour than economics or law, founded upon ideas we have constructed, ie currency or justice. Let alone, something such as poetry or music? What value do these have outside of human judgment?
If you are contrasting human endeavour with machine endeavour, then the logical processes of computers, and the reliance of mathematics on strict logic, would place mathematics as one of the least 'intensely human endeavours'.
I think the whole notion of intensely human endeavours and non-intensely human endeavours, within the area of human endeavours, is silly.
M
Re:Thanks, unions, government, and greedy employee
on
Train Your Own Replacement
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I disagree with your economic rationalist approach that there are people fundamentally 'worth' $4/hr. Perhaps there are people who are desperate enough to work for that wage, but that doesn't mean since they will bear that wage, they are worth that amount.
Minimum wages are there to prevent workers getting underpaid when desperate for work. The downside is that raising the minimum wage may increase costs to such an extent that workers are laid off, and one could argue getting $5/hr is better than getting $0/hr. However, placing all wage-fixing rights in the hands of the employer, can quickly lead to 'like it or lump it' starvation level wages.
In addition you state 'these people would not make one penny more if there was no minimum wage law'. That may be true, but they could stand to make a lot of pennies less.
Why should you be angry about losing the hubble? Even if they did the repair work, risking personell and finance, the life of the Hubble lens would only be prolonged 2-3 years at most. There are plans to launch another orbital telescope in 2007, which will see further and sharper than Hubble.
The director of NASA's Mars unmanned probe project recently spoke at the National Museum of Australia, and his reasoning was that it was an unnecessary risk to staff to try and maintain or repair the Hubble, especially when newer telescopes were going to replace it soon.
Hubble has done its job, and has provided much useful data. Its mirrors have finite life however, and so it's time to move on. Lots of money has been spent on the launching, repairing and maintaining Hubble already, and telescope technology has improved in the meantime.
First Bismarck's effort to remake the world, then Hitler's efforts for the higher man. Stalin "knew" the world would be wonderful without the Kulaks (Jews, for those of you with a government degree) and didn't stop China, adding another 80 million to the toll. Not to mention Pol Pot and dozens of other reformers. I don't understand what you mean by "government degree" here, but the Kulaks != jews. Kulak literally means fist, and were supposedly the rich peasants. In reality, they were the peasants who owned a cow and horse (if very wealthy) and didn't have to hire themselves out to other peasants as labour. Lenin tried to apply a marxian class analysis to the peasantry, that is, he felt that the poor peasants would side with the socialists against the kulaks, and thus the peasants would support a socialist revolution. In reality, the peasants had become closer together during the civil war, and periods of War Communism, that is, they were all fairly poor, with small plots of land. Lenin was forced to negotiate with the peasantry in the form of the NEP, and a regression to a capitalist tax. The negotiation with the peasantry ended with Stalin because by then the bolsheviks had enough power to force the collectivisation of the peasants, and to acquire the kulaks land. On an irrelevant note, Stalin had his own name for this: dekulakisation Some Kulaks may have been jews, but not all Kulaks were jews, and not all jews were Kulaks. This was ultimately a class issue, and Stalin attempting to solve the peasant problem that restrained Russia
I've been reading both your criticism of ST, and Greg's rebuttal. I too have not read the book, but seen the movie.
I found the movie extremely entertaining, but I think it is impossible to rationalise it as a 'worthy' movie. You said that the book was interpreted by some deluded fans purely as a satire. I can't comment on this, but I found that the movie was entirely satire.
You said that "The director, I don't know what he was smoking, decided that anything different to the USA is a facist state with nazi overtones". I found the movie to be the opposite. I felt he was mocking the pro-US militaristic elements, and aggressive societies. Yes I do think there was a strong nazi element in there, but he was just mocking the genus of patriotic propaganda films.
The film was so ludicrous in parts - and that is what made it so obviously comedic to me. Even the names - they are all white americans, and have names Johnny, Carl etc, but they live in Buenos Aires? Would Johnny have been called Johnny if Carmen wasn't going to write to him and give him a "dear John" letter.
Other things: Carmen being unable to disect a big cockroach, then stabbing a huge smart bug with a paperknife, the Lieutenant saying "I'd expect any of you to do the same to me" making it clear that Johnny was going to kill him. "I expect the best, and I give the best, here's the games, and here's the entertainment". C'mon, it's just ripping the piss out of old pro-us, anti-them, propaganda films. (another one just popped into mind, the token sacrifice at the end with the 'nuke' "c'mon, you like that, huh, you want some more, huh...(BOOM)"
When I was watching the movie, I thought I'd had a shocker in the first 30mins. It looked like a Melrose Place set in space (they go to a formal and discuss their futures ffs). However, about 30mins in, he goes to boot camp, and the Sgt starts breaking arms and throwing knives. I was thinking, hold on, this is a bit strange, and I _knew_ he was taking the piss when Johnny shot that other guy and you saw the bullets taking off his head. From then on it is just a rollercoaster ride of bar fights (pisstake of airforce/infantry rivalry) competition for women (in true American fashion), and then just good wholesome fighting.
At worst it was an entertaining film with extremely funny violence (the flying bugs taking off ppl's heads?), and reasonable special effects. I haven't read the book, and seeing as the book seems to be an intellectual work I have no doubt that the film is a butchery of it. Still, the movie definitely stands on its own as watchable, and quite humourous.
(another example: the constant flicking back to the TV news, taking the piss out of the media... especially the end "This time they'll fight, and THEY'LL WIN!")
I'm not sure if it would be possible to synthesise, or if it would revert to an adamantane structure, but a 4 Carbon Tetrahedronically arranged molecule would have even greater bond strain. We did say above that bond strain didn't directly relate to delta-H(combustion) but that would still be an extremely reactive molecule.
Hows about tetranitrotetrahedrane? (having mental blackout on how to name polycyclics, and can't see how one would name this anyway, 1,2,2-tricyclo?). That would have to go somewhere on their 'strength tester' of how many bricks of steel it goes through when you blow it up.
Does this compound exist (I think it would be similar to the structure for white phosphorus?), and is it possible to make?
Ppl are saying that you have absolutely no idea how the child is going to turn out, they might be genius that will contribute greatly to society, or they might place immense strain on their family and associates.
Why not extend the abortion period? Say 15 years or so. "welp, sorry mate, you just didn't turn out right." Just give parents the right to kill their kids willy-nilly, and we might beat the population problem down.
Anyway, by that time you might have a good idea whether you want to keep him/her, and you might have gotten some good labour out of the kid.
Slashdot Mirror
Invention: spell-checkers
Necessity: idiots.
Where did I fail to demonstrate a basic knowledge of GR?
The first poster has the right tack - list experiments verifying GR - all correct, all informative.
What google search should I have done?
this one
This lists, like the above post, gravitational lensing, gravitational timeshift, shapiro time delay, and precession.
I probably shouldn't have said 'little', perhaps I meant less, that is, less than the experimental evidence for quantum tunnelling, wave-particle duality, the second law of thermodynamics, but as the parent said quite correctly, that is entirely a matter of opinion, and I appreciate that comment. After all, what is the relevance of a 'lot' of proof, or a 'little' proof, if something is proven.
I 'invoke' string theory, because I think it holds too high a place in TOE study, and within mathematical physics in general. People have to spend many years gaining competence in all the areas which string theory covers, and are unable to specialise in any one of these areas. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, as it was irrelevant - what I was trying to say was that there are certainly some branches of physics, or more precisely mathematics, that are very hard to find observable evidence for.
What factory should I go back to? Are you a gifted and talented chest-beating theoretical physicist? are you trying to be the creator of GUT? In my experience cosmology and GR attract a lot of arrogant physics undergraduates, who think their problem of universe origin is the most important problem of all.
Then again, physics students in general could be said to be arrogant, and it helps to study something that you think is genuinely important, so what's the loss?
take home message: first poster - left me informed, humbled, you - left me thinking you are a physics major worth little salt.
Still, the original post has merit. They haven't detected a WIMP particle within the sensitivity of the original experimental device, and now they want to make it bigger. What if they still don't register WIMP events? Why didn't they make detector big enough in the first place? One could easily say 'they couldn't know how big it needed to be until they built it', but you can't endlessly get grants for 'bigger', you also need 'smarter'. They should also be looking at different experimental methods. An example of great experimental physics is the Neutrino Detection Facility at Kamiokande(Nobel Prize 2002)
Laser cooling as in forming Bose-Einstein Condensates?
This seems patently false. Quantum mechanics is ugly as all hell, but has a lot of observable physical evidence that verifies it. General Relativity is mathematically quite elegant, yet there is little physical observable evidence to verify it. We have the precession of Mercury, and some other small things, but nowhere near the wealth of experimental data we have that verifies quantum mechanics.
I think GR is very much a correct theory, but things like pre-inflation cosmology, and string theory, which are more based on the elegance and beauty of the mathematics involved, I have a harder time considering proved, or even to some extent considering if we will ever have the experimental capacity to prove them.
I don't think many people, especially in the field of GR, would disagree with your statement that GR is "the most well-tested physical theory yet developed". One only has to look at it's brother, Special Relativity, to see a theory which has been much more thoroughly tested.
Whilst I think this is prevalent everywhere, I think in particular it is a symptom of university in the US.
My experience in the US was that there was weekly homework, and the whip was constantly cracked. Longer assignments, and self-pressure from the student was mostly absent [in undergraduate study].
However, things are different in different countries, as you pointed out with Russian education. In UK/Aus/NZ there is a lot less emphasis on homework, more emphasis on exams, and perhaps 2-3 assignments in a semester. It's why nearly every american exchange student who comes to one of those countries can't believe no-one is forcing him/her to do work, so does almost nothing until the last minute. The other problem with the US system, is that it encourages students to believe there is always an answer if they just work hard enough, which may not necessarily be true.
However, US students on the whole, after 4 years, have a far better grasp of the skills, and imho it's very hard to learn maths without having done a shitload of problems.
There are certainly universities in the US where undergraduates construct proofs and learn proofs. In fact, I can't believe there are Tertiary mathematics courses that don't have some course in analysis/algebra that involves proof.
The thing is, if you choose to study a course on John Donne, then you have to expect them to shove John Donne down your throat. This is not a good example, but I guess the point of a well taught course is to show the inherent worth in the subject, and to arouse interest in the students. So if something appears useless and 100 years old, hopefully, if taught by a good prof, not by those, as you say "who don't care", then they should show you why the study of that 100 year old 'classic' is worthwhile.
It is unfortunate you have had such a shit run of the college experience. All I can say is that even if you are at a shit institution, you get out what you put in. The research you wanted to do, but were told you didn't have the prerequisite, perhaps if you went back and put your case forward, like you did above, namely that you feel you have the necessary knowledge, and are willing to pay the financial and academic cost of failure, they hopefully would see reason and let you in.
I agree with most of what you have said, but I don't see how applying free market theory to universities, will solve the problem you outline?
If Universities are to be run as economic units, then it is in their interest to offer low cost, high fee courses, for instance, law, which requires very few resources to teach, but charges high fees. Why are they going to run courses that require even more equipment, eg veterinary science or medicine? You could make those courses more expensive, as they have a higher earning potential, but then so does law.
I think universities need to be stripped down - most subjects could take place at a technical institute. I'd love to see Law and Medicine be taught as a trade, but realistically the first thing that needs to change is society's placing of prestige upon those fields. If the study of philosophy, for example, was regarded as prestigious, even though low-paying, it would still attract high quality students.
IMHO, Law and Medicine are trades - certainly medicine is mostly memorising symptomatic flow charts, ie if this, then this, then this, then this, and then experience having seen illnesses/ performed surgery. I think in theory it is the same as being an aviation mechanic or any form of repairer.
M.
[100% chance of troll mod I reckon)
Researching towards a PhD is ... hard.
Most of the time spent on your undergraduate degree is spent learning how to learn, and learning some of the basic nomenclature and skills that will help you day to day while doing your PhD. You will always have to learn more stuff while doing your PhD, and there will probably always be stuff that you learnt, that you never use.
It would be entirely possible to start doing 'PhD Level Research' after one or two years of university, but you might not be doing high quality. Certainly, I think you will be a better PhD candidate if you do a range of courses as an undergraduate, to give you more tools, and also do some undergraduate research programmes, ie 1-2 semesters. This will help you see how research works, and what happens on a day to day basis. It will give you some practice in directing yourself, and start teaching you how to solve original problems.
It doesn't take a 4 year degree to be a researcher. But to be a good researcher, it helps to have spent 3-4 years in a strong academic environment.
M.
I don't understand this sentiment.
If you are earning $140k a year, then unless you have a family, that is a lot of money. You can rent in/around the bay area for $650 a month, look at craigslist.
http://www.craigslist.org/roo/
You don't need a good car, you can get a shit car, again look at craigslist: ($1500)
http://www.craigslist.org/eby/car/29280824.html
So why are you even looking at buying property? You can live for 10 years, probably meet more exciting people, and save enough to live in Thailand for about 50 years. Or the midwest, whatever you prefer.
I'm never satisfied seeing people saying I earn 100k, but that's not much here with cost of living. Do you remember before you earnt that much? Do you remember living adequately? Plenty of people survive on less. You could do more than survive - survive and have fun.
M
$100 a month for your retirement!
This seems like insanity. The reason you can get good return for making superannuation or retirement payments when your 20 is because you are taking a bigger risk. Anything could happen in 40 years, including your death which would leave you shit out of luck. Investing money is fine, but saving for your retirement when you have just entered the workforce... doesn't that make anyone else want to slit their wrists?
And besides, $100 a month is not small change, you can do a hell of a lot with that, like learning/playing new sports, getting skills, getting out hiking/mountain biking/climbing, even just buying a shovel and hitting yourself in the head with it twice a day.
You could even argue the diverse skill set, and actually having hobbies that weren't open source could increase your value to an employer.
M
Correct. When a collegue of Einstein's suggested that it was impossible for an object with mass to reach light speed, Einstein felt compelled to point out that a photon has mass and it travels at light speed.
Photon's have zero rest mass. The only mass they have is a relativistic consequence of their velocity.
The problem I think lies in the fact that in most industries paying minimum wage, ie unskilled labour, there is a far higher supply of employment, than employers. Mandatory minimum wage laws are of little impact to people being paid well above the minimum wage, and I think with most unskilled labour, if not all, there is a far greater supply of people who want jobs than there are employers.
If there is a mandatory minimum wage, and the job is necessary, and it takes 100 people to do the job, then 100 people will be employed at minimum wage rates. If there is no minimum wage, then these people will be paid 'what the market can bear', which might be very low. Ultimately, there will not be any more or less people out of a job, just 100 people with more money to buy food and support families.
Mathematics is one of the most intensely human of human endeavours. Everything in it is a production of the human mind entirely.
This is a fairly nonsensical statement. Everything inside of human thought processes, or sentience, is a very intensely human endeavour. Why is mathematics a more intensely human endeavour than economics or law, founded upon ideas we have constructed, ie currency or justice. Let alone, something such as poetry or music? What value do these have outside of human judgment?
If you are contrasting human endeavour with machine endeavour, then the logical processes of computers, and the reliance of mathematics on strict logic, would place mathematics as one of the least 'intensely human endeavours'.
I think the whole notion of intensely human endeavours and non-intensely human endeavours, within the area of human endeavours, is silly.
M
I disagree with your economic rationalist approach that there are people fundamentally 'worth' $4/hr. Perhaps there are people who are desperate enough to work for that wage, but that doesn't mean since they will bear that wage, they are worth that amount.
Minimum wages are there to prevent workers getting underpaid when desperate for work. The downside is that raising the minimum wage may increase costs to such an extent that workers are laid off, and one could argue getting $5/hr is better than getting $0/hr. However, placing all wage-fixing rights in the hands of the employer, can quickly lead to 'like it or lump it' starvation level wages.
In addition you state 'these people would not make one penny more if there was no minimum wage law'. That may be true, but they could stand to make a lot of pennies less.
M.
Why should you be angry about losing the hubble? Even if they did the repair work, risking personell and finance, the life of the Hubble lens would only be prolonged 2-3 years at most. There are plans to launch another orbital telescope in 2007, which will see further and sharper than Hubble.
The director of NASA's Mars unmanned probe project recently spoke at the National Museum of Australia, and his reasoning was that it was an unnecessary risk to staff to try and maintain or repair the Hubble, especially when newer telescopes were going to replace it soon.
Hubble has done its job, and has provided much useful data. Its mirrors have finite life however, and so it's time to move on. Lots of money has been spent on the launching, repairing and maintaining Hubble already, and telescope technology has improved in the meantime.
First Bismarck's effort to remake the world, then Hitler's efforts for the higher man. Stalin "knew" the world would be wonderful without the Kulaks (Jews, for those of you with a government degree) and didn't stop China, adding another 80 million to the toll. Not to mention Pol Pot and dozens of other reformers. I don't understand what you mean by "government degree" here, but the Kulaks != jews. Kulak literally means fist, and were supposedly the rich peasants. In reality, they were the peasants who owned a cow and horse (if very wealthy) and didn't have to hire themselves out to other peasants as labour. Lenin tried to apply a marxian class analysis to the peasantry, that is, he felt that the poor peasants would side with the socialists against the kulaks, and thus the peasants would support a socialist revolution. In reality, the peasants had become closer together during the civil war, and periods of War Communism, that is, they were all fairly poor, with small plots of land. Lenin was forced to negotiate with the peasantry in the form of the NEP, and a regression to a capitalist tax. The negotiation with the peasantry ended with Stalin because by then the bolsheviks had enough power to force the collectivisation of the peasants, and to acquire the kulaks land. On an irrelevant note, Stalin had his own name for this: dekulakisation Some Kulaks may have been jews, but not all Kulaks were jews, and not all jews were Kulaks. This was ultimately a class issue, and Stalin attempting to solve the peasant problem that restrained Russia
I've been reading both your criticism of ST, and Greg's rebuttal. I too have not read the book, but seen the movie.
I found the movie extremely entertaining, but I think it is impossible to rationalise it as a 'worthy' movie. You said that the book was interpreted by some deluded fans purely as a satire. I can't comment on this, but I found that the movie was entirely satire.
You said that "The director, I don't know what he was smoking, decided that anything different to the USA is a facist state with nazi overtones". I found the movie to be the opposite. I felt he was mocking the pro-US militaristic elements, and aggressive societies. Yes I do think there was a strong nazi element in there, but he was just mocking the genus of patriotic propaganda films.
The film was so ludicrous in parts - and that is what made it so obviously comedic to me. Even the names - they are all white americans, and have names Johnny, Carl etc, but they live in Buenos Aires? Would Johnny have been called Johnny if Carmen wasn't going to write to him and give him a "dear John" letter.
Other things: Carmen being unable to disect a big cockroach, then stabbing a huge smart bug with a paperknife, the Lieutenant saying "I'd expect any of you to do the same to me" making it clear that Johnny was going to kill him. "I expect the best, and I give the best, here's the games, and here's the entertainment". C'mon, it's just ripping the piss out of old pro-us, anti-them, propaganda films. (another one just popped into mind, the token sacrifice at the end with the 'nuke' "c'mon, you like that, huh, you want some more, huh...(BOOM)"
When I was watching the movie, I thought I'd had a shocker in the first 30mins. It looked like a Melrose Place set in space (they go to a formal and discuss their futures ffs). However, about 30mins in, he goes to boot camp, and the Sgt starts breaking arms and throwing knives. I was thinking, hold on, this is a bit strange, and I _knew_ he was taking the piss when Johnny shot that other guy and you saw the bullets taking off his head. From then on it is just a rollercoaster ride of bar fights (pisstake of airforce/infantry rivalry) competition for women (in true American fashion), and then just good wholesome fighting.
At worst it was an entertaining film with extremely funny violence (the flying bugs taking off ppl's heads?), and reasonable special effects. I haven't read the book, and seeing as the book seems to be an intellectual work I have no doubt that the film is a butchery of it. Still, the movie definitely stands on its own as watchable, and quite humourous.
(another example: the constant flicking back to the TV news, taking the piss out of the media... especially the end "This time they'll fight, and THEY'LL WIN!")
I'm not sure if it would be possible to synthesise, or if it would revert to an adamantane structure, but a 4 Carbon Tetrahedronically arranged molecule would have even greater bond strain. We did say above that bond strain didn't directly relate to delta-H(combustion) but that would still be an extremely reactive molecule.
Hows about tetranitrotetrahedrane? (having mental blackout on how to name polycyclics, and can't see how one would name this anyway, 1,2,2-tricyclo?). That would have to go somewhere on their 'strength tester' of how many bricks of steel it goes through when you blow it up.
Does this compound exist (I think it would be similar to the structure for white phosphorus?), and is it possible to make?
-Muttley
Ppl are saying that you have absolutely no idea how the child is going to turn out, they might be genius that will contribute greatly to society, or they might place immense strain on their family and associates.
Why not extend the abortion period? Say 15 years or so. "welp, sorry mate, you just didn't turn out right." Just give parents the right to kill their kids willy-nilly, and we might beat the population problem down.
Anyway, by that time you might have a good idea whether you want to keep him/her, and you might have gotten some good labour out of the kid.