One of the big military "holy grails" right now is biological sensors (part of my work). DARPA wants a sensor which can detect a wide range of biological and chemical weapons. Why in the world would developing such a device be seen as bad? Not only would it protect civilians and the military, it would keep us honest as well. It could provide evidence to our enemies should we use such things.
The sheer hypocricy of this guy, who is doing research of questionable ethics, to accuse people like me of being immoral is astounding. He's the worst sort of ivory tower scientest, one who refuses to see any flaws in his person, but easily points out the flaws in everyone else.
I've had a few classes on programming, and have absolutely hated all of them (that's part of the reason why I stayed away from computer science). At the same time, I've been able to teach myself a number of languages, and had a job in college doing computational physics.
As you appear to still be in high school, I feel honor bound to offer you some advice:
You will never learn as much in a class as you will on your own. Skip and test out of as many classes as you can (sounds like you might already be doing that) and find a mentor, or job which will teach you what you really want to know.
Although it may be strange to hear of a graduate level introductory class, I have been there.
At my university, one is required to take introductory programming as a physics graduate student. Usually this class is taught in C, but recently they switched over to Java. The class is taught as though no one knows anything about programming (of course, many of us did).
All I can say is...
For the love of God DON'T use java!! Please, please think about what you're doing! Java classes invariably fall into the "class about java, with some programming" category. If you truly are dealing with people who have no programming experiance, the very idea of a compiler will be foreign to them. When you have to explain what "include" does in the first week, you will lose half the class.
Think about it! You have many more problems than which book to use. You're only option with java is to go at the pace the undergrad courses go... because that's what works with java, and then you have to ask yourself what you're doing teaching this class in the first place.
My personal experiance with java was not too bad, but I had programming experiance. Every week, a dozen people with no experiance would live in the professors office seeking help, and that's just not the way you want to do things.
My favorite source of information has always been the library. Not only do you find books on what you might be looking for, but you'll often find the original research paper on a topic.
You might scoff, but librarians will show you where you can find those books and articles online as well.
Thus you have demonstrated the importance of swing votes and choosing your opponent.
In real life, a good example of this was when Davis campaigned against Riordan in the "real" California election primary so that he would face Simon, a pathetic candidate. Riordan would have had a good chance of beating Davis, where as Simon had no chance.
I don't know that I would call your scenerio unfair, or just unexpected.
Most of cosmology is based on the assumption (that is everywhere in physics taught in the United States) that the Universe can be explained as a collection of particles.
There is a (new?) competing point of view which comes from the condensed matter people which is that the Universe must be explained as collections and "phase transitions". Given the absolute chaos which is inside something as basic as a proton, I find this view more natural.
I have always wondered how much cosmology depends of this assumption, and if cosmologists consider the condensed matter approach. (I may be biased, I am a condensed matter phsyicist.)
Well, I don't have a BS in Materials Science, but I'm working on a PhD in... well, lets call it nanoscience.
I personally don't know how to make titanium oxide nanotubes, but I imagine it would be similar to making carbon nanotubes... which I do have experiance with.
Allow me to show you...
The way you make carbon nanotubes is simple. You start with a catalyst (everything from rust to specially tailored alloys has been used), place this catalyst on a clean substrate where you want the tube to start growing. Next, flow some carbon rich gas through a furnace (i.e. methane), add a little hydrogen. When hot, place your substrate in the furnace. Nanotubes will grow from the catalyst in the direction of the flow (mostly).
That same method is used to grow many types of tubes and nanowires. The only hard thing is dealing with flammable and explosive gases at high temperature (I havn't blown anything up yet, but I'm trying), and keeping everything clean.
When dealing with nanotubes, you have to remember that you want to get a specific shape out, and not amorphous material, and that can be very hard. In most cases, you tailor your catalyst to provide the general shape you want, and grow off of that. So you could very easily control the growth of a ceramic, but the shape?
Now obviously, there are other ways to grow these things... but I'm going to stop now before this turns into a lecture.
What you're referring to is mathmatically called roughness. Obviously, the expression is not "rougher than a pancake". If we're going to do this scientifically, we have to use the proper scientific definitions.
You're absolutely right, it's not property in the "owning property" sense. It's property as in "the property of this object is..."
There is more than one definition of property. Really, we're arguing semantics now, I think we both agree on the fundamentals here. It's just the use of the english language which is in question. I can understand now the objection to the word "property".
Just because I give an idea to someone doesn't mean it's not mine anymore. It's not a thing that you need to keep to yourself in order to use it later.
Now that we're talking in parables, think of the expression "I have an idea". Just because you then tell people what it is doesn't mean the idea's not yours.
To keep an idea to one's self goes against what I was saying. You can tell anyone you want what your idea is. Someone else can have discovered it before you, it doesn't matter, it's still your idea. Who is going to reach into your head and take it out?
I disagree. As a scientest, I do so have "intellectual property". It doesn't even have to be in the legal sense of the term. There are things I do that no one else does. They are my intellectual property, the property of my intellect.
Once you have done something that as far as you know, no one else has ever done, it's yours. It doesn't and shouldn't matter what the world says about it, as far as your intellect is concerned, you "have" that idea.
Think about the difference between when you learn something out of a book and when you learn independantly. There is a definite sense of accomplishment and personal ownership.
In the legal sense intellectual property should be used as a way of determining ultimately who is responible for the rest of the world knowing something. Recent political perversions of this ideal have nothing to do with the (in my opinion) justified concept of intellectual property.
Interestingly enough, my dad was the first politician to propose allowing people to pay to get into the carpool lane solo.
Originally, it was intended to be an untouchable source of income to expand bus lines and raise money for mass transit in San Diego county (an area in desperate need of some kind of real mass transit). Needless to say he has mixed feelings about the idea now.
It sounds like you're in the wrong place then. If you're an undergrad, I would plan on going to grad school somewhere else. If you're already working on the Master's... well perhaps then you're better off just following other people's advice.
I'm a graduate student at UCI in physics. In talking with Benford, I can tell you that these aren't only ideas in books. This sling idea is very common right now in space science, and Benford orignially planned on using this sling idea to launch his solar sails all over the place. (They've been covered extensivly in the media and here, especially when they failed to launch... too lazy to post a link)
So, you could say, it's good science that led to good sci-fi which in turn led to more good science.
You definition still works here. Humans directly influenced a particular set of genes to get this. Just because we used "traditional" techniques doesn't make it any different.
The movie has lead to a popular interest in these ideas, but they've been around for centuries. It's always been an interesting philisophical question.
I was always slightly annoyed by the people who thought the Matrix was philosophically original. As you say, it is just a good kung foo/super human/slowmotion fight movie.
The real problem is that they don't teach physics to anyone anymore, not that there are real "mad scientest" types. (By the way, IAAP).
They're trying to copy a reaction that occurs in our atmosphere and they think it creates sub-atomic black holes. If it doesn't... well they're wrong, and that would be huge for new physics. If it does, then black holes are created all the time, all around you, and that would be huge for century old physics.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the big military "holy grails" right now is biological sensors (part of my work). DARPA wants a sensor which can detect a wide range of biological and chemical weapons. Why in the world would developing such a device be seen as bad? Not only would it protect civilians and the military, it would keep us honest as well. It could provide evidence to our enemies should we use such things.
The sheer hypocricy of this guy, who is doing research of questionable ethics, to accuse people like me of being immoral is astounding. He's the worst sort of ivory tower scientest, one who refuses to see any flaws in his person, but easily points out the flaws in everyone else.
I've had a few classes on programming, and have absolutely hated all of them (that's part of the reason why I stayed away from computer science). At the same time, I've been able to teach myself a number of languages, and had a job in college doing computational physics.
As you appear to still be in high school, I feel honor bound to offer you some advice:
You will never learn as much in a class as you will on your own. Skip and test out of as many classes as you can (sounds like you might already be doing that) and find a mentor, or job which will teach you what you really want to know.
Although it may be strange to hear of a graduate level introductory class, I have been there.
At my university, one is required to take introductory programming as a physics graduate student. Usually this class is taught in C, but recently they switched over to Java. The class is taught as though no one knows anything about programming (of course, many of us did).
All I can say is...
For the love of God DON'T use java!! Please, please think about what you're doing! Java classes invariably fall into the "class about java, with some programming" category. If you truly are dealing with people who have no programming experiance, the very idea of a compiler will be foreign to them. When you have to explain what "include" does in the first week, you will lose half the class.
Think about it! You have many more problems than which book to use. You're only option with java is to go at the pace the undergrad courses go... because that's what works with java, and then you have to ask yourself what you're doing teaching this class in the first place.
My personal experiance with java was not too bad, but I had programming experiance. Every week, a dozen people with no experiance would live in the professors office seeking help, and that's just not the way you want to do things.
My favorite source of information has always been the library. Not only do you find books on what you might be looking for, but you'll often find the original research paper on a topic.
You might scoff, but librarians will show you where you can find those books and articles online as well.
There were two differences in your scenario.
1) X was more preferred by 2 people.
2) Y was less preferred by 2 people.
Thus you have demonstrated the importance of swing votes and choosing your opponent.
In real life, a good example of this was when Davis campaigned against Riordan in the "real" California election primary so that he would face Simon, a pathetic candidate. Riordan would have had a good chance of beating Davis, where as Simon had no chance.
I don't know that I would call your scenerio unfair, or just unexpected.
Most of cosmology is based on the assumption (that is everywhere in physics taught in the United States) that the Universe can be explained as a collection of particles.
There is a (new?) competing point of view which comes from the condensed matter people which is that the Universe must be explained as collections and "phase transitions". Given the absolute chaos which is inside something as basic as a proton, I find this view more natural.
I have always wondered how much cosmology depends of this assumption, and if cosmologists consider the condensed matter approach. (I may be biased, I am a condensed matter phsyicist.)
Well, I don't have a BS in Materials Science, but I'm working on a PhD in... well, lets call it nanoscience.
I personally don't know how to make titanium oxide nanotubes, but I imagine it would be similar to making carbon nanotubes... which I do have experiance with.
Allow me to show you...
The way you make carbon nanotubes is simple. You start with a catalyst (everything from rust to specially tailored alloys has been used), place this catalyst on a clean substrate where you want the tube to start growing. Next, flow some carbon rich gas through a furnace (i.e. methane), add a little hydrogen. When hot, place your substrate in the furnace. Nanotubes will grow from the catalyst in the direction of the flow (mostly).
That same method is used to grow many types of tubes and nanowires. The only hard thing is dealing with flammable and explosive gases at high temperature (I havn't blown anything up yet, but I'm trying), and keeping everything clean.
When dealing with nanotubes, you have to remember that you want to get a specific shape out, and not amorphous material, and that can be very hard. In most cases, you tailor your catalyst to provide the general shape you want, and grow off of that. So you could very easily control the growth of a ceramic, but the shape?
Now obviously, there are other ways to grow these things... but I'm going to stop now before this turns into a lecture.
Of course.
I was simply trying to out-troll-ish you. I think you win being modded informative.
I don't think you can take any discussion of AIR seriously.
What you're referring to is mathmatically called roughness. Obviously, the expression is not "rougher than a pancake". If we're going to do this scientifically, we have to use the proper scientific definitions.
If you describe a device in such a way that it can be engineered, then you're not a science fiction writer... because it wouldn't be fictional.
Very often science fiction authors are scientests as well, and help NASA (or some similar organization) get all the glory.
Quite often, the doers and the dreamers are the same person. (Asimov, Brin, Benford, ect...)
We just see that there are some things we can't do right now.
That came out a little wrong...
I meant GTA 1 was a PC game as well (of course)
In any case, try GTA2
GTA 1 was actually a PC game, with a really nice multiplayer mode.
I never made it through the single player game, but I played quite a bit of multiplayer GTA 1.
GTA 2 was very, very similar to GTA 1, I would say if you liked the London add on, it's definitely worth playing.
You're absolutely right, it's not property in the "owning property" sense. It's property as in "the property of this object is..."
There is more than one definition of property. Really, we're arguing semantics now, I think we both agree on the fundamentals here. It's just the use of the english language which is in question. I can understand now the objection to the word "property".
Just because I give an idea to someone doesn't mean it's not mine anymore. It's not a thing that you need to keep to yourself in order to use it later.
Now that we're talking in parables, think of the expression "I have an idea". Just because you then tell people what it is doesn't mean the idea's not yours.
To keep an idea to one's self goes against what I was saying. You can tell anyone you want what your idea is. Someone else can have discovered it before you, it doesn't matter, it's still your idea. Who is going to reach into your head and take it out?
I disagree. As a scientest, I do so have "intellectual property". It doesn't even have to be in the legal sense of the term. There are things I do that no one else does. They are my intellectual property, the property of my intellect.
Once you have done something that as far as you know, no one else has ever done, it's yours. It doesn't and shouldn't matter what the world says about it, as far as your intellect is concerned, you "have" that idea.
Think about the difference between when you learn something out of a book and when you learn independantly. There is a definite sense of accomplishment and personal ownership.
In the legal sense intellectual property should be used as a way of determining ultimately who is responible for the rest of the world knowing something. Recent political perversions of this ideal have nothing to do with the (in my opinion) justified concept of intellectual property.
Interestingly enough, my dad was the first politician to propose allowing people to pay to get into the carpool lane solo.
Originally, it was intended to be an untouchable source of income to expand bus lines and raise money for mass transit in San Diego county (an area in desperate need of some kind of real mass transit). Needless to say he has mixed feelings about the idea now.
It sounds like you're in the wrong place then. If you're an undergrad, I would plan on going to grad school somewhere else. If you're already working on the Master's... well perhaps then you're better off just following other people's advice.
I'm a graduate student at UCI in physics. In talking with Benford, I can tell you that these aren't only ideas in books. This sling idea is very common right now in space science, and Benford orignially planned on using this sling idea to launch his solar sails all over the place. (They've been covered extensivly in the media and here, especially when they failed to launch... too lazy to post a link)
So, you could say, it's good science that led to good sci-fi which in turn led to more good science.
You definition still works here. Humans directly influenced a particular set of genes to get this. Just because we used "traditional" techniques doesn't make it any different.
Your first problem is asking a counselor.
Find a professor at your University doing this, or interested in this, and get his advice. Better yet, start working for him.
That's just generally good advice for anyone who wants to go to grad school in science or engineering.
The coating is a mere three micrometres thick
I guess that would make it a microcoating?
We have a usefull word for nanoparticles as well... molecules.
Who said anything about the Martix?
The movie has lead to a popular interest in these ideas, but they've been around for centuries. It's always been an interesting philisophical question.
I was always slightly annoyed by the people who thought the Matrix was philosophically original. As you say, it is just a good kung foo/super human/slowmotion fight movie.
You fail to mention the part where it's well known that reading or writing uninterruptedly for long periods of time can result in vision problems.
The real problem is that they don't teach physics to anyone anymore, not that there are real "mad scientest" types. (By the way, IAAP).
They're trying to copy a reaction that occurs in our atmosphere and they think it creates sub-atomic black holes. If it doesn't... well they're wrong, and that would be huge for new physics. If it does, then black holes are created all the time, all around you, and that would be huge for century old physics.