Let's see. This article, and your response brings to mind the perfect antithesis of the guy's hypothesis. Ready, two words: Paris Hilton. She is the prototype of the upper strata group, and while some, myself included, will argue that she isn't beautiful, she fits pretty much every other descriptor of the "higher human species". The main exception is the little detail of intelligence. Nobody in their right mind would describe Miss Hilton as intelligent. Funny thing, I often think of her as trailer park trash that was born in a ridiculously wealthy family.
Testing change in BMI and change (if any) in IQ that is associated with it.
Yes, I completely agree that BMI is a poor metric in determining health, but it is the easiest one to generalize health. There are those who are "obese" when a proper body fat assesment would indicate lean, but those are more the exception than the rule. In most of the population BMI is a reasonable consideration.
If the study did look at the change in BMI and IQ then these results would actually mean something IMHO. A change means more than a one time measurement. If there was an accompanying change in IQ that correlated with the change in BMI then we'd have reason to take notice. If I were in charge of the study I would do an initial body fat assesment at the very least, and ideally one at the conclusion of the trial period. Then we'd have some useful data to look at.
But the problem is that this type of person generally is more interested in having the toys than the security. Some people can get away with it because they are content in a smaller house with a reasonable car that joe public can afford. Throw the big bucks at many others and they start thinking pimped Escalades and stuff from Cribs.
I had an Atari 2600, an NES, then went to Sega Genesis. I did get a Sega Dreamcast (to play around with the DC Linux port, and the homebrews) when they stopped making them, so that kind of doesn't count. But yeah, I may very well be getting a Wii. Slightly different road, but we're in basically the same boat.
Not only would there be no incentive to skip class, but there WOULD be incentive to get the podcast in addition to attending class. I've attended lectures where I didn't have a chance to take all the notes I needed. Recording the audio, as many students did, only gave the spoken word. I would have also been able to see the written material on the board, if video podcasts were available. In those unfortunately odd times where the lecture is very valuable, video podcasts of the lecture make the experience more worthwhile. I can go to class and listen more than frantacally scribble notes. That means I hear more of the good stuff. I can go back and revisit the lecture during study. That means I get more "repetitions", as they say regarding practice in some sports. That means I get a better opportunity to learn. Plus I can skip asides that have no bearing on the subject matter, and editorials, such as political commentary in a art class.
Is this a question by a professor that is too concerned about seeing butts in chairs because of vanity, or a real concern for the educational process? I am led to believe video podcasts will enhance the educational process. I am all for this, and I hope it spreads to all universities. You know the "cool" universities will allow public downloads, so I can keep learning stuff I want to know, or keep up on stuff I already know.
The problem is that you are describing what will very likely be the minority. Sure the cause might be noble, but in the long run it is an idealistic view. You know the whole idea of suggesting to someone on slashdot to get off their ass on a matter is laughable as an AC. If I'm going to put my effort into something (and who is to say that I'm not an active participant) I want it to be effective. Wiki flavored politics sounds like a slashdot forum; not exactly what I would call effective.
I get a kick out of Utah politics. If it is a republican the elephant symbol is prominent, the republican party is in big bold letters, it's all obvious. If it is a democrat the donkey symbol is usually absent, democratic party is rarely seen, it's almost cryptic. On the linked page, you have to go almost to the bottom of the page to see the line "politics: democrat". Considering that the state typically votes republican by a 2/3 to 3/4 majority every presidential election, it makes sense, but it is still sadly comical.
The established politicians will be making a big and costly push to tilt things in their favor, and the small fries will be on the outside looking in. If that can't be accomplished because of the way it is put together there will still be the little "B" word, bias. I love Wiki, but every once in a while there is an article reaking of bias. They don't always last that way, but there is a time that they appear very tilted. If the casual observer who is not likely to come back comes across something biased, they have been misinformed/underinformed at best and lied to at worst.
In all fairness, this is just an announcement at this point. This all might change when it gets out of the initial announcement with no details phase, but I'm skeptical. I don't think blogs are changing politics per se. I think "inside the beltway" it is still business as usual. I think blogs are changing how politics are being reported to us. They are a challenge to mainstream media outlets. In that regard, I think this is just another drop in the bucket.
I saw one of their aweful ads saying it just works networking with a PC, and the PC guy got his feathers ruffled when it just works with the new digital camera from Japan. Being a bit of a skeptic, I went to dynamism.com to look at the new digital cameras from Japan, and funny enough they mention Windows compatibility but not Mac compatibility. My sig is kind of a knock on MS, but I have to admit I'm typing this on a windows box. (Is it WinAMD instead of Wintel for me?)
That and growing a crop that will yield ethanol is made possible by photosynthesis which has CO2 as an "ingredient" and O2 as a "byproduct". In some sense it is a short term fix, in that ICE's are still involved, but it is a short term fix that we can live with more easily for longer than burning fossil fuels. I imagine that ethanol burning and production would be more of a long term fix that can be made obsolete through future upgrades. I won't argue with raising crops to fuel vehicles until we can switch to the hydrogen economy if/when that happens.
The weight vs. density observation is valid, but you have to compare volume's instead of wieght until we can pressurize tanks to contain a weight of fuel rather than a volume of fuel.
The oxygen already in alcohol raises an interesting question in my mind. If the oxygen containing alcohol group in ethanol C2H5(OH) is easily used in the combustion, would it not lend to a more complete reaction? I didn't pay that much attention to the reaction kinetics in my chemistry classes, so maybe someone else could shed some light. If the reaction is more complete, there should hypothetically be less harmful exhaust.
I like the idea of ethanol fuel for cars, due to how renewable it is (and in a certain sense it cleans up after itself). I just wish there was the infrastructure. For those of us that have vehicles that can use ethanol, how many can actualy purchase ethanol? I know I can't, and I want to at least try it out.
The large family thing makes me laugh. It's interesting that mini-vans get more mpg than comparable capacity SUV's. Sure there is more "utility" to the SUV, but for the ones that "need" the extra utility they can afford it. The rest can more easily (cost of vehicle and better efficiency) afford a mini van. But there are a whole lot of people that look at their vehicle purchase as a status symbol and try to buy up.
I think that ultimately this is splitting hairs to some degree. I have only a basic understanding of physics, but I think there is a tremendous opportunity for advancement in regards to our understanding of the human body in alien environments (both real and simulated). If we can keep spacefarers healthier by including a centrifuge to simulate gravity it is worth looking at, whether or not there is such a thing as "centrifugal force" (as an aside I believe I heard that the concept was erroneous in Jr High).
I think the original post muddied things up a bit by thinking too much about the extremes of the experimental observations, and it misses the practical applications. The original post I responded to propogated ideas that I don't think fall under the umbrella of physics unless he has heard some very advanced concepts without the basic understanding. I doubt very much that circuits would be impacted by a "force" of 20G for example.
My field is exercise science, so I focus on the human organism. Perhaps there is an application to the instruments and devices that would be used at hypergravity (thus the 20 G stuff in the article), but I find the human element far more interesting, and compelling. I for one would love to see experimental data for a person living at say 1.5G for a two week period, and the impact that the experiment would have on bone density, muscle mass, and the ability of the subject to recover from training bouts. I think a very interesting experiment would be examining training at various multiples of gravity and then recover in zero gravity. If we can find the ideal multiple G training environment with a zero G rest environment we could keep astronauts healthy for the duration of a trip to (and from) Mars.
I think the biggest benefit of this type of research is in learning about how the human body reacts to the exercise stimulus in 1 G, 2 Gs, and so on. Exercise in space is about the only way very healthy 20-30 year olds don't have serious osteoporosis symptoms after spending some time on the ISS, and to a much lesser degree the shuttle. The human body doesn't maintain bone mass, or muscle tissue if it doesn't need it. Zero gravity is the maximum example of not having any need for bone mass and muscle tissue. Throw a centrifuge onto a space station/craft and the occupants might actually be able to walk and move on their own power after a stint in space.
Also a G is a unit of acceleration if I remember my physics right.
I was going to spend some mod points on this discussion, but I have to respond to this. I have a degree in exercise science and work with a men's and a women's college volleyball team. There would be almost no benefit to athletes that would live in this type of condition. The results from training are highly specific. There are two obvious ways ( to me at least) this is a problem.
If an athlete were to train at 2 Gs, let's use olympic weightlifting for this example, they would certainly develop more maximal force production, but that depends a whole lot on how much training can be done. If the athlete is living at 2 Gs, they don't get a whole lot of opportunity to rest and recover from training bouts. This means they don't get to train as often or as intense.
There are motor learning problems as well in that the motor units would learn the movement AT 2 Gs and performing that movement at standard gravity would be entirely different. The lifter, assuming the force production is greater than normal training, would lift too quickly to control, and injury becomes likely (think picking up something that is much lighter than expected).
The same would hold true for almost all sports. Few events would benefit from hypergravity training. 100 meter dash is the only one that comes to mind at the moment. Periodic jump training might benefit sports like volleyball, but the other ones involve skill performance that would be seriously hindered. Most olympic caliber athletes are already in peak condition and this would help very little; certainly not enough to justify the cost. One I'm familiar with is a 6' 8" volleyball player that can jump high enough to touch 12'+ (top of a regulation basketball backboard) while wearing jeans. In most matches he doesn't come close to his maximum vertical leap. If there was constant training in 2 Gs for a volleyball team they would be horrible on game day because of jacking the ball too high and far, and their timing to jump and spike the ball would be painful to watch (i.e. my 10 year old daughter would look better)
The long drive is just a matter of strength and mechanics. The mechanics for a drive are pretty standard; they don't change much from a drive to a fairway shot. Strength does come into play, but if the mechanics are off the ball doesn't go straight. All the fancy gizmos and gadgets aren't going to improve mechanics much as they already are good. The top pros work on the long drive by hitting the weights. The short game IS the difference between winning and losing. Games are often lost on putts that are less than 10 feet. That and some amateurs (good ones mind you) putt two and three times more than a pro does.
Yeah, one of my former co-workers is keeping them in business. He keeps track of Rifts book release dates better than the average comic fan keeps track of when comic movies are released. Of course if they did go out of business, I think he would slash his wrists and start doing push-ups. I don't know if the heart attack from all the sudden exertion or the loss of blood would kill him first.
It would probably only be used by typical weekend hacks. The pros hook and slice on purpose. That and the balls that don't hook also won't get the same loft that you get with all the dimples. Or the backspin.
My brother is a teaching pro, and I've studied motor learning. You are going to get more out of $500 in lessons from a GOOD instructor that understands the fundamentals. If you get good feedback and perform the basic skills better, the overall game gets better. That and like you said most of the time pros practice they are working on putting and other specific things that happen a lot more than a long drive does (18 holes minus 2-4 par 3's and some more shorter par 4's and you're only looking at about 10-12 times all the fancy driving instruction comes to play out of 72 strokes for a scratch golfer). Get better at putting alone and your score improves by at least 10% for the average golfer.
An anecdotal story my brother told me about something he saw at a PGA event: My brother was watching the people at the driving range. There were pros and amateurs there (Pro/Am event). My brother noticed that all the amateurs were teeing up and swinging to see how far they could get. The pros on the other hand were hitting at a target. It's a basic principle of motor learning. Make practice as much like competition as possible. If you are always hitting at a location in practice, you get better at hitting a target (green, flag, etc.) in a round. You just swing to hit long, that's all you get, and like I said before that only gives you a few extra yards on about 12 of 72 strokes.
I'd say that guys like Tiger Woods wouldn't bother with this sort of thing because it is a gimmick to get people to get long drives. Pros understand that long drives are way down on the totem pole.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see. This article, and your response brings to mind the perfect antithesis of the guy's hypothesis. Ready, two words: Paris Hilton. She is the prototype of the upper strata group, and while some, myself included, will argue that she isn't beautiful, she fits pretty much every other descriptor of the "higher human species". The main exception is the little detail of intelligence. Nobody in their right mind would describe Miss Hilton as intelligent. Funny thing, I often think of her as trailer park trash that was born in a ridiculously wealthy family.
Testing change in BMI and change (if any) in IQ that is associated with it.
Yes, I completely agree that BMI is a poor metric in determining health, but it is the easiest one to generalize health. There are those who are "obese" when a proper body fat assesment would indicate lean, but those are more the exception than the rule. In most of the population BMI is a reasonable consideration.
If the study did look at the change in BMI and IQ then these results would actually mean something IMHO. A change means more than a one time measurement. If there was an accompanying change in IQ that correlated with the change in BMI then we'd have reason to take notice. If I were in charge of the study I would do an initial body fat assesment at the very least, and ideally one at the conclusion of the trial period. Then we'd have some useful data to look at.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these...
I'd put in the crappy 4 steps to profit one, but I don't feel like it right now.
But the problem is that this type of person generally is more interested in having the toys than the security. Some people can get away with it because they are content in a smaller house with a reasonable car that joe public can afford. Throw the big bucks at many others and they start thinking pimped Escalades and stuff from Cribs.
Is in my sig line.
I had an Atari 2600, an NES, then went to Sega Genesis. I did get a Sega Dreamcast (to play around with the DC Linux port, and the homebrews) when they stopped making them, so that kind of doesn't count. But yeah, I may very well be getting a Wii. Slightly different road, but we're in basically the same boat.
My bet was a "skin", or a cover of some sort. 10 bucks sounds about right for a controller cover.
Is this a question by a professor that is too concerned about seeing butts in chairs because of vanity, or a real concern for the educational process? I am led to believe video podcasts will enhance the educational process. I am all for this, and I hope it spreads to all universities. You know the "cool" universities will allow public downloads, so I can keep learning stuff I want to know, or keep up on stuff I already know.
The problem is that you are describing what will very likely be the minority. Sure the cause might be noble, but in the long run it is an idealistic view. You know the whole idea of suggesting to someone on slashdot to get off their ass on a matter is laughable as an AC. If I'm going to put my effort into something (and who is to say that I'm not an active participant) I want it to be effective. Wiki flavored politics sounds like a slashdot forum; not exactly what I would call effective.
I get a kick out of Utah politics. If it is a republican the elephant symbol is prominent, the republican party is in big bold letters, it's all obvious. If it is a democrat the donkey symbol is usually absent, democratic party is rarely seen, it's almost cryptic. On the linked page, you have to go almost to the bottom of the page to see the line "politics: democrat". Considering that the state typically votes republican by a 2/3 to 3/4 majority every presidential election, it makes sense, but it is still sadly comical.
The established politicians will be making a big and costly push to tilt things in their favor, and the small fries will be on the outside looking in. If that can't be accomplished because of the way it is put together there will still be the little "B" word, bias. I love Wiki, but every once in a while there is an article reaking of bias. They don't always last that way, but there is a time that they appear very tilted. If the casual observer who is not likely to come back comes across something biased, they have been misinformed/underinformed at best and lied to at worst.
In all fairness, this is just an announcement at this point. This all might change when it gets out of the initial announcement with no details phase, but I'm skeptical. I don't think blogs are changing politics per se. I think "inside the beltway" it is still business as usual. I think blogs are changing how politics are being reported to us. They are a challenge to mainstream media outlets. In that regard, I think this is just another drop in the bucket.
I saw one of their aweful ads saying it just works networking with a PC, and the PC guy got his feathers ruffled when it just works with the new digital camera from Japan. Being a bit of a skeptic, I went to dynamism.com to look at the new digital cameras from Japan, and funny enough they mention Windows compatibility but not Mac compatibility. My sig is kind of a knock on MS, but I have to admit I'm typing this on a windows box. (Is it WinAMD instead of Wintel for me?)
When you think about them running ads saying "It just works" everything comes into focus. Add to that the legions of Mac zealots.
That and growing a crop that will yield ethanol is made possible by photosynthesis which has CO2 as an "ingredient" and O2 as a "byproduct". In some sense it is a short term fix, in that ICE's are still involved, but it is a short term fix that we can live with more easily for longer than burning fossil fuels. I imagine that ethanol burning and production would be more of a long term fix that can be made obsolete through future upgrades. I won't argue with raising crops to fuel vehicles until we can switch to the hydrogen economy if/when that happens.
The weight vs. density observation is valid, but you have to compare volume's instead of wieght until we can pressurize tanks to contain a weight of fuel rather than a volume of fuel.
The oxygen already in alcohol raises an interesting question in my mind. If the oxygen containing alcohol group in ethanol C2H5(OH) is easily used in the combustion, would it not lend to a more complete reaction? I didn't pay that much attention to the reaction kinetics in my chemistry classes, so maybe someone else could shed some light. If the reaction is more complete, there should hypothetically be less harmful exhaust.
I like the idea of ethanol fuel for cars, due to how renewable it is (and in a certain sense it cleans up after itself). I just wish there was the infrastructure. For those of us that have vehicles that can use ethanol, how many can actualy purchase ethanol? I know I can't, and I want to at least try it out.
The large family thing makes me laugh. It's interesting that mini-vans get more mpg than comparable capacity SUV's. Sure there is more "utility" to the SUV, but for the ones that "need" the extra utility they can afford it. The rest can more easily (cost of vehicle and better efficiency) afford a mini van. But there are a whole lot of people that look at their vehicle purchase as a status symbol and try to buy up.
I thought post first, read later was mandatory. I usually can't if I want to for a day or two, damn slashdot effect.
I think that ultimately this is splitting hairs to some degree. I have only a basic understanding of physics, but I think there is a tremendous opportunity for advancement in regards to our understanding of the human body in alien environments (both real and simulated). If we can keep spacefarers healthier by including a centrifuge to simulate gravity it is worth looking at, whether or not there is such a thing as "centrifugal force" (as an aside I believe I heard that the concept was erroneous in Jr High).
I think the original post muddied things up a bit by thinking too much about the extremes of the experimental observations, and it misses the practical applications. The original post I responded to propogated ideas that I don't think fall under the umbrella of physics unless he has heard some very advanced concepts without the basic understanding. I doubt very much that circuits would be impacted by a "force" of 20G for example.
My field is exercise science, so I focus on the human organism. Perhaps there is an application to the instruments and devices that would be used at hypergravity (thus the 20 G stuff in the article), but I find the human element far more interesting, and compelling. I for one would love to see experimental data for a person living at say 1.5G for a two week period, and the impact that the experiment would have on bone density, muscle mass, and the ability of the subject to recover from training bouts. I think a very interesting experiment would be examining training at various multiples of gravity and then recover in zero gravity. If we can find the ideal multiple G training environment with a zero G rest environment we could keep astronauts healthy for the duration of a trip to (and from) Mars.
Again if I remember my physics correctly, acceleration is a change in speed and/or direction. A centrifuge is a change in direction for sure.
I think the biggest benefit of this type of research is in learning about how the human body reacts to the exercise stimulus in 1 G, 2 Gs, and so on. Exercise in space is about the only way very healthy 20-30 year olds don't have serious osteoporosis symptoms after spending some time on the ISS, and to a much lesser degree the shuttle. The human body doesn't maintain bone mass, or muscle tissue if it doesn't need it. Zero gravity is the maximum example of not having any need for bone mass and muscle tissue. Throw a centrifuge onto a space station/craft and the occupants might actually be able to walk and move on their own power after a stint in space.
Also a G is a unit of acceleration if I remember my physics right.
I was going to spend some mod points on this discussion, but I have to respond to this. I have a degree in exercise science and work with a men's and a women's college volleyball team. There would be almost no benefit to athletes that would live in this type of condition. The results from training are highly specific. There are two obvious ways ( to me at least) this is a problem.
If an athlete were to train at 2 Gs, let's use olympic weightlifting for this example, they would certainly develop more maximal force production, but that depends a whole lot on how much training can be done. If the athlete is living at 2 Gs, they don't get a whole lot of opportunity to rest and recover from training bouts. This means they don't get to train as often or as intense.
There are motor learning problems as well in that the motor units would learn the movement AT 2 Gs and performing that movement at standard gravity would be entirely different. The lifter, assuming the force production is greater than normal training, would lift too quickly to control, and injury becomes likely (think picking up something that is much lighter than expected).
The same would hold true for almost all sports. Few events would benefit from hypergravity training. 100 meter dash is the only one that comes to mind at the moment. Periodic jump training might benefit sports like volleyball, but the other ones involve skill performance that would be seriously hindered. Most olympic caliber athletes are already in peak condition and this would help very little; certainly not enough to justify the cost. One I'm familiar with is a 6' 8" volleyball player that can jump high enough to touch 12'+ (top of a regulation basketball backboard) while wearing jeans. In most matches he doesn't come close to his maximum vertical leap. If there was constant training in 2 Gs for a volleyball team they would be horrible on game day because of jacking the ball too high and far, and their timing to jump and spike the ball would be painful to watch (i.e. my 10 year old daughter would look better)
The long drive is just a matter of strength and mechanics. The mechanics for a drive are pretty standard; they don't change much from a drive to a fairway shot. Strength does come into play, but if the mechanics are off the ball doesn't go straight. All the fancy gizmos and gadgets aren't going to improve mechanics much as they already are good. The top pros work on the long drive by hitting the weights. The short game IS the difference between winning and losing. Games are often lost on putts that are less than 10 feet. That and some amateurs (good ones mind you) putt two and three times more than a pro does.
Yeah, one of my former co-workers is keeping them in business. He keeps track of Rifts book release dates better than the average comic fan keeps track of when comic movies are released. Of course if they did go out of business, I think he would slash his wrists and start doing push-ups. I don't know if the heart attack from all the sudden exertion or the loss of blood would kill him first.
It would probably only be used by typical weekend hacks. The pros hook and slice on purpose. That and the balls that don't hook also won't get the same loft that you get with all the dimples. Or the backspin.
My brother is a teaching pro, and I've studied motor learning. You are going to get more out of $500 in lessons from a GOOD instructor that understands the fundamentals. If you get good feedback and perform the basic skills better, the overall game gets better. That and like you said most of the time pros practice they are working on putting and other specific things that happen a lot more than a long drive does (18 holes minus 2-4 par 3's and some more shorter par 4's and you're only looking at about 10-12 times all the fancy driving instruction comes to play out of 72 strokes for a scratch golfer). Get better at putting alone and your score improves by at least 10% for the average golfer.
An anecdotal story my brother told me about something he saw at a PGA event: My brother was watching the people at the driving range. There were pros and amateurs there (Pro/Am event). My brother noticed that all the amateurs were teeing up and swinging to see how far they could get. The pros on the other hand were hitting at a target. It's a basic principle of motor learning. Make practice as much like competition as possible. If you are always hitting at a location in practice, you get better at hitting a target (green, flag, etc.) in a round. You just swing to hit long, that's all you get, and like I said before that only gives you a few extra yards on about 12 of 72 strokes.
I'd say that guys like Tiger Woods wouldn't bother with this sort of thing because it is a gimmick to get people to get long drives. Pros understand that long drives are way down on the totem pole.