For a low tech fitness solution, google "Office chair workouts". You'll see lots of useful stuff like this . It is mainly about resistance training (non-aerobic workout), so if you want to go full in on resistance training, you could just get some weights and even one of those hand grip devices and start pumping iron while you crunch numbers on the computer. But fitness aside, if you want a healthy career then you should be proactive with your time and do things that you are not asked to do.
Astronomy and mathematics are two of the remaining professional academic disciplines that are still open to significant contributions from amateurs, hobbyists, and other unaffiliated individuals. This is likely to do with the nature of research in those fields, such as the fact that almost everyone has access to the sky, or the ability to experiment with abstract mathematical ideas. It is not just about things professionals have not 'bothered to check', but rather there is still so much to learn out there in astronomy and mathematics that people from a wide variety vocations can "stumble" across new discoveries. See this list of amateur mathematicians and their original/primary vocations. You have primary school teachers, lawyers, an innkeeper, as well as engineers and scientists from other fields and many many more.
I encourage everyone who has an interest in astronomy and/or mathematics to dabble in those areas with the understanding that they too can still make new discoveries. Try joining your local astronomy club, or an amateur mathematics society , or just keep dabbling and observing, and don't think "I could never make a real discovery," because it is possible.
Why is it that people who have evaded authorities find it irresistible to gloat about how "clever" they are to have outwitted cops. I get it, maybe eventually talk about it in an autobiography, but he may technically still be evading said authorities. He might as well say, "nanna nanna booboo, come and get me!".
Note to self: always carry a roll of aluminum foil in case I am chased by a helicopter at night.
Then I can say I am going to a space convention or something...
Those proposals seem like terrible ideas, but it is no surprise given the countries that proposed them. It is just sad to see what it finally takes for the republicans and democrats to agree on something. Maybe if we tell them that the UN is going to forbid countries from implementing a single-payer health system, then congress will decide to implement it out of spite.
So we should allow the highest bidder to choke off the bandwidth from their less wealthy competitors? Honestly, can someone explain to me how this would be a good idea?
I think the confusion arises because a position against net neutrality legislation is immediately seen as a position for multi-tiered networks. There is nothing in the law currently stopping big name ISPs from charging content providers in a multi-tiered set up. Rather, what the anti-net-neutrality legislation would provide is protection against lawsuits and future laws that might be unfavorable to their business model.
Not passing legislation or abstaining from new legislation on the matter is a third choice in the net neutrality debate. This is still not the greatest option and does not imply that the free market will solve the issue in the end, as there are still a great number of people locked into a single broadband provider because of a lack of competetion. What abstaining does allow for is the customer in such a market to sue his ISP, or for a content provider to sue an ISP. That way a specific practice can be analyzed and a legal precedent can be set, without broadly effecting network policy with overly general legislation.
"You do realize that just because a majority of people believe one thing does not make it true, right?"
Your belief, and anyone else's belief is irrelevant to science in regards to a "scientific conclusion". Let me explain it to you historically with one of your own example, "At another, people thought atoms consisted of a proton with electrons orbiting around it."
This is not true, because it is inaccurate. No scientist thought or believed that atoms consisted of electrons orbiting atoms. It is more accurate to say that at one time, the best theory, which had the fewest weaknesses and was based upon empirical data and scientific methodology, was the model that electrons orbited protons. Yet even then, this theory was known to have weakeness, like the electron radiating because it was accelerating, but there was no better theory so this was the "scientific conclusion".
Now we physicists have gone even further, down to the level of quarks and leptons. The physics that describes this is "quantum field theory", and the model is called the "standard model". No scientist believes that atoms are made out of quarks and leptons becuase this believe is unnecessary. It is more accurate to say that scientists have concluded based upon empirical data and scientific methodology that the best theory with the fewest weaknesses is the standard model. Yet even now, without a better theory, this theory is known to have weakenesses. For instance, it can explain neither mass, nor neutrino oscillations, nor gravity.
One of the hottest topics in physics is the search for the next best model to describe the atom. Would physicist's be so eager to search for something they did not believe in? The answer is neither 'yes' or 'no', but rather 'belief is unnecessary in science to scientific conclusions'.
Similarly, no scientist believes in global warming. Their belief is irrelevant. It is more accurate to say that the best theory that describes the climate and the recent climate changes, is a climatological theory which includes the theory called "global warming", because this theory has the fewest weaknesses and is based upon scientific methodology and empirical data. To dispute this, you must show, using the scientific methodology of climatologist's, that there is a theory that better fits the empirical data and has fewer weakness than the previously prevailing theory, "global warming". Even though I am a physics graduate student in an accredited PhD program, I do not possess the scientific background that includes the scientific methodology and empirical data of the climatologists. Thus, I cannot dispute this. I will hazard a guess that neither can you, nor can 'certain politicians' (even if they right fancy books and news articles) nor anyone else who is not trained in the scientific methodology of the climatologists and their empirical data.
All you have is your beliefs, which you are free to have, so long as you are aware that they are both irrelevant and unnecesary to the scientific discussion of "scientific conclusions".
If the test results can be so easily skewed by a cheap $15 device that can be found anywhere, then it is likely that the test itself is flawed.
I see the same problem with people who cheat on exams by bringing in books and notes. If the test can be so easily skewed by such materials, then make the test in a way that having books and notes does not help, and let the test be open book and notes. Instead, what I see are professors who rely upon problems whose complete solution can be found in any book, so that the course becomes more about regurgitating or even copying what is found in a book, rather than about understanding the material.
"Scientific Research That Could Have Been Avoided" "Scientists research questions few would ask"
I disagree with the supposition insinuated by the titles of the slashdot post and the article itself. How, pray tell, could this research have been avoided? By guessing? Or perhaps through the "application" of common sense? As science is the systematic investigation of physically observable and testable phenomena, pure guess work or common sense without observation and testability is no substitute for scientific research. You may not like the idea of the strict requirement of testability and observation, but that is the nature of science. You may still have common sense, but without this testability and observation, common sense is not science, thus cannot be a substitute for science.
"Scientists research questions few would ask"
This title somehow made it through the irony editor at the post-gazette. So who is captain obvious now? Is it the scientists who are analyzing physically observable and testable phenomena regardless of the obscurity of that phenomena, which is their job, or is it the author of this article who wrote an entire article about this nature, without realizing it?
With all the talk and misinformation against Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I felt compelled to provide some more in depth information on the matter and its relation to this article.
Firstly, there are about 5 major contending interpretations of quantum mechanics. You might ask, why we need to interpret quantum mechanics. "Because it is freaking weird," that's why. Let me use a classical analogy to explain how it is weird. Imagine system of 3 coupled springs as shown here, http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/3013/spring/n ode4.html#SECTION00040000000000000000 . In classical mechanics, any motion of the two blocks (described by the top system) can be described as a superposition (linear combination) of the bottom two systems, called the normal modes. This is true in both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. The difference is in when we try and measure the velocity of one of the blocks.
In classical mechanics, the block maintains nearly the same velocity before our measurement as it did afterwards (save for a tiny perturbation). Overall the motion of the system remains largely the same. In quantum mechanics, we find that the spring system can initially be in the top state, and then after a measurement it is in one of the normal modes! Now that's crazy. The motion of the system changed _drastically_ merely because I looked at it! This is what is called the "collapse of the wave function" ("decoherence" for you physics types) because the system collapses into one of the normal modes after being observed.
The problem is initially we were in a superposition of the 2 normal modes. From this, 2 questions naturally arise:
Q1.) What happened to the other normal mode after the wave function collapsed?
Q2.) What was _really_ the initial state of the system?
These are perfectly legitimate physical questions, but they are very difficult to answer. As a first crack at trying to solve this puzzle, a number of different postulates have been devised. Some of them we can see as "easily" testable (I use that term loosely), while the testability of others escapes us at this moment in history. These are called the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and like I said, there are 5 major/important ones, and I list their answers to the questions as A1 and A2 respectively. They are:
1.) Copenhagen interpretation. This is the most abstract. It says that we can only talk about probable states, and nothing more.
A1.) The system randomly fell into the observed state as a result of our observing it. In other words, "The cat has some chance of being dead or alive and when I looked at it, it randomly became dead (or alive)."
A2.) The system was in neither normal mode. Period. (Yeah, that answer sucks. Most physicist agree.)
2.) Hidden variables. This is the most classical. It says that it really was in one of the states, but we just couldn't observe it (yet).
A1.) It was never in that state.
A2.) The system was always in the state we observed.
3.) Anthropic. This is the least satisfying, IMHO. It basically says that if things were any different, then we would not be here talking about it. It doesn't really address the 2 questions directly, and is rarely used alone.
4.) Everett's many-worlds. According to several surveys, it is the most popular amongst those who understand it, http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#believes . Basically, both normal modes exist simultaneously, but in different universes.
A1.) An identical spring system in another identical universe (with another you) continues to move in the other state. These two universes existed before the measurement, but they weren't different until now. The fact that they both existed before hand caused the original spring system to be in a superposition of both states.
A2.) The spring system of the other identical universe, interfered (not interact!) with your spring system, causing the initial state in both universes to be mixed.
5.) Feynman's advanced and retarded waves. Note: even Feynman preferre
I love that portable toto device, "made especially for people on the go"! Wow, I bet it took 50 takes before they could say that with a straight face. ROFL
Slashdot Mirror
For a low tech fitness solution, google "Office chair workouts". You'll see lots of useful stuff like this . It is mainly about resistance training (non-aerobic workout), so if you want to go full in on resistance training, you could just get some weights and even one of those hand grip devices and start pumping iron while you crunch numbers on the computer. But fitness aside, if you want a healthy career then you should be proactive with your time and do things that you are not asked to do.
Astronomy and mathematics are two of the remaining professional academic disciplines that are still open to significant contributions from amateurs, hobbyists, and other unaffiliated individuals. This is likely to do with the nature of research in those fields, such as the fact that almost everyone has access to the sky, or the ability to experiment with abstract mathematical ideas. It is not just about things professionals have not 'bothered to check', but rather there is still so much to learn out there in astronomy and mathematics that people from a wide variety vocations can "stumble" across new discoveries. See this list of amateur mathematicians and their original/primary vocations. You have primary school teachers, lawyers, an innkeeper, as well as engineers and scientists from other fields and many many more.
I encourage everyone who has an interest in astronomy and/or mathematics to dabble in those areas with the understanding that they too can still make new discoveries. Try joining your local astronomy club, or an amateur mathematics society , or just keep dabbling and observing, and don't think "I could never make a real discovery," because it is possible.
Why is it that people who have evaded authorities find it irresistible to gloat about how "clever" they are to have outwitted cops. I get it, maybe eventually talk about it in an autobiography, but he may technically still be evading said authorities. He might as well say, "nanna nanna booboo, come and get me!".
Note to self: always carry a roll of aluminum foil in case I am chased by a helicopter at night.
Then I can say I am going to a space convention or something...
Those proposals seem like terrible ideas, but it is no surprise given the countries that proposed them. It is just sad to see what it finally takes for the republicans and democrats to agree on something. Maybe if we tell them that the UN is going to forbid countries from implementing a single-payer health system, then congress will decide to implement it out of spite.
It is only a matter of time before it starts playing "Global Thermonuclear War".
Okay, maybe "canspire" would be better, but it would not be as funny.
Not passing legislation or abstaining from new legislation on the matter is a third choice in the net neutrality debate. This is still not the greatest option and does not imply that the free market will solve the issue in the end, as there are still a great number of people locked into a single broadband provider because of a lack of competetion. What abstaining does allow for is the customer in such a market to sue his ISP, or for a content provider to sue an ISP. That way a specific practice can be analyzed and a legal precedent can be set, without broadly effecting network policy with overly general legislation.
A concept car is just what I am looking for to drive to my concept job!
If they equate "security" to DRM, then I am calling fud, lol.
~Kevin
"You do realize that just because a majority of people believe one thing does not make it true, right?"
Your belief, and anyone else's belief is irrelevant to science in regards to a "scientific conclusion". Let me explain it to you historically with one of your own example, "At another, people thought atoms consisted of a proton with electrons orbiting around it."
This is not true, because it is inaccurate. No scientist thought or believed that atoms consisted of electrons orbiting atoms. It is more accurate to say that at one time, the best theory, which had the fewest weaknesses and was based upon empirical data and scientific methodology, was the model that electrons orbited protons. Yet even then, this theory was known to have weakeness, like the electron radiating because it was accelerating, but there was no better theory so this was the "scientific conclusion".
Now we physicists have gone even further, down to the level of quarks and leptons. The physics that describes this is "quantum field theory", and the model is called the "standard model". No scientist believes that atoms are made out of quarks and leptons becuase this believe is unnecessary. It is more accurate to say that scientists have concluded based upon empirical data and scientific methodology that the best theory with the fewest weaknesses is the standard model. Yet even now, without a better theory, this theory is known to have weakenesses. For instance, it can explain neither mass, nor neutrino oscillations, nor gravity.
One of the hottest topics in physics is the search for the next best model to describe the atom. Would physicist's be so eager to search for something they did not believe in? The answer is neither 'yes' or 'no', but rather 'belief is unnecessary in science to scientific conclusions'.
Similarly, no scientist believes in global warming. Their belief is irrelevant. It is more accurate to say that the best theory that describes the climate and the recent climate changes, is a climatological theory which includes the theory called "global warming", because this theory has the fewest weaknesses and is based upon scientific methodology and empirical data. To dispute this, you must show, using the scientific methodology of climatologist's, that there is a theory that better fits the empirical data and has fewer weakness than the previously prevailing theory, "global warming". Even though I am a physics graduate student in an accredited PhD program, I do not possess the scientific background that includes the scientific methodology and empirical data of the climatologists. Thus, I cannot dispute this. I will hazard a guess that neither can you, nor can 'certain politicians' (even if they right fancy books and news articles) nor anyone else who is not trained in the scientific methodology of the climatologists and their empirical data.
All you have is your beliefs, which you are free to have, so long as you are aware that they are both irrelevant and unnecesary to the scientific discussion of "scientific conclusions".
~Kevin
At least, not until they overclock it. Now an overclocked toaster running NetBSD. Now that's News!
~Kevin
If the test results can be so easily skewed by a cheap $15 device that can be found anywhere, then it is likely that the test itself is flawed.
I see the same problem with people who cheat on exams by bringing in books and notes. If the test can be so easily skewed by such materials, then make the test in a way that having books and notes does not help, and let the test be open book and notes. Instead, what I see are professors who rely upon problems whose complete solution can be found in any book, so that the course becomes more about regurgitating or even copying what is found in a book, rather than about understanding the material.
~Kevin
"Scientific Research That Could Have Been Avoided"
"Scientists research questions few would ask"
I disagree with the supposition insinuated by the titles of the slashdot post and the article itself. How, pray tell, could this research have been avoided? By guessing? Or perhaps through the "application" of common sense? As science is the systematic investigation of physically observable and testable phenomena, pure guess work or common sense without observation and testability is no substitute for scientific research. You may not like the idea of the strict requirement of testability and observation, but that is the nature of science. You may still have common sense, but without this testability and observation, common sense is not science, thus cannot be a substitute for science.
"Scientists research questions few would ask"
This title somehow made it through the irony editor at the post-gazette. So who is captain obvious now? Is it the scientists who are analyzing physically observable and testable phenomena regardless of the obscurity of that phenomena, which is their job, or is it the author of this article who wrote an entire article about this nature, without realizing it?
~Kevin
From today's headlines, it would seem that we are already in the parallel universe:
Bush is inagurated for his second term
IBM Ordered to Show More Code to SCO
Spammers Sue Spamee
'Evil Twin' Threat to Wireless Security
"Why aren't Cobb, Badnarik, Brown, and others shown?"
I'll answer that with 'Who?'
With all the talk and misinformation against Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, I felt compelled to provide some more in depth information on the matter and its relation to this article. Firstly, there are about 5 major contending interpretations of quantum mechanics. You might ask, why we need to interpret quantum mechanics. "Because it is freaking weird," that's why. Let me use a classical analogy to explain how it is weird. Imagine system of 3 coupled springs as shown here, http://www.math.okstate.edu/~wrightd/3013/spring/n ode4.html#SECTION00040000000000000000 . In classical mechanics, any motion of the two blocks (described by the top system) can be described as a superposition (linear combination) of the bottom two systems, called the normal modes. This is true in both classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. The difference is in when we try and measure the velocity of one of the blocks. In classical mechanics, the block maintains nearly the same velocity before our measurement as it did afterwards (save for a tiny perturbation). Overall the motion of the system remains largely the same. In quantum mechanics, we find that the spring system can initially be in the top state, and then after a measurement it is in one of the normal modes! Now that's crazy. The motion of the system changed _drastically_ merely because I looked at it! This is what is called the "collapse of the wave function" ("decoherence" for you physics types) because the system collapses into one of the normal modes after being observed. The problem is initially we were in a superposition of the 2 normal modes. From this, 2 questions naturally arise: Q1.) What happened to the other normal mode after the wave function collapsed? Q2.) What was _really_ the initial state of the system? These are perfectly legitimate physical questions, but they are very difficult to answer. As a first crack at trying to solve this puzzle, a number of different postulates have been devised. Some of them we can see as "easily" testable (I use that term loosely), while the testability of others escapes us at this moment in history. These are called the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and like I said, there are 5 major/important ones, and I list their answers to the questions as A1 and A2 respectively. They are: 1.) Copenhagen interpretation. This is the most abstract. It says that we can only talk about probable states, and nothing more. A1.) The system randomly fell into the observed state as a result of our observing it. In other words, "The cat has some chance of being dead or alive and when I looked at it, it randomly became dead (or alive)." A2.) The system was in neither normal mode. Period. (Yeah, that answer sucks. Most physicist agree.) 2.) Hidden variables. This is the most classical. It says that it really was in one of the states, but we just couldn't observe it (yet). A1.) It was never in that state. A2.) The system was always in the state we observed. 3.) Anthropic. This is the least satisfying, IMHO. It basically says that if things were any different, then we would not be here talking about it. It doesn't really address the 2 questions directly, and is rarely used alone. 4.) Everett's many-worlds. According to several surveys, it is the most popular amongst those who understand it, http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#believes . Basically, both normal modes exist simultaneously, but in different universes. A1.) An identical spring system in another identical universe (with another you) continues to move in the other state. These two universes existed before the measurement, but they weren't different until now. The fact that they both existed before hand caused the original spring system to be in a superposition of both states. A2.) The spring system of the other identical universe, interfered (not interact!) with your spring system, causing the initial state in both universes to be mixed. 5.) Feynman's advanced and retarded waves. Note: even Feynman preferre
I love that portable toto device, "made especially for people on the go"! Wow, I bet it took 50 takes before they could say that with a straight face. ROFL
Its one thing to invade the TV and radio, but it is another thing to invade Star wars and the ISS with this junk. Whats next, my physics book?