You can get a brutal drenching downpour that is completely natural, too. They are potentially dangerous primarily in areas prone to flash flooding, or near rivers that like to jump their banks.
Yes, seeding does cause unnatural rates of precipitation, in the sense that it is rain that otherwise likely would not have fallen. But there are physical processes at work that limit the size of raindrops and the speed at which they fall. Large, fast raindrops literally get blown apart by air resistance as they fall.
And of course, seeding often doesn't work, or it doesn't work well--you get a gentle rainfall, or a little bit of drizzle.
Absolutely right. We should develop a complete understanding of weather based entirely on theory and calculation, in which we can place absolute confidence because no experimental data contradicts our model.
Of course, once we're sure we have a complete understanding, then let the weather modification begin.
I'm afraid that the early attempts at large-scale weather modification will always be experimental, no matter how much theory we throw at the problem first. Do we start experimenting sooner, or later?
chances are the companies would simply pay the $20/yr and then raise fares an unequal (most likely to their advantage) amount to offset it...
The problem with that is that in many jurisdictions (in Canada, at least--I can't speak for other countries) taxi fares are regulated by municipal governments. The nice thing about this is that taxi companies have to compete on the basis of service, and cab companies can't unilaterally adjust their prices.
Believe it or not, Hawaii has a great deal to offer the scientist and engineer.
For big engineering, there is Mauna Kea. Several of the world's largest telescopes, sprouting like mushrooms from the top of an extinct volcano. Cough up a hundred and fifty bucks or so and you get a guided tour of the summit, as well as a ride up from the coast. And parkas--even in August it's bloody cold up there. The sunset from the top is to die for, and you're almost always above the clouds. It's like the surface of the moon--no vegetation, just dust. The guided tours also usually stop on the way down at around 10,000' and set up a smaller scope for some observing and general stargazing. Very cool.
This is science, not engineering, but you really should go snorkelling, or SCUBA diving if you have your papers. There's a lot of interesting life just about anywhere you get into the water.
More biology: the smallest, least settled island at the end of the chain (Kaui) is mostly rain forest. See the Grand Canyon of the Pacific, and hike through the forests. The Bali Ha'i scenes from the movie version of South Pacific were shot here. Very much worth the trip, since Aloha Airlines runs very inexpensive flights between the islands. (Don't forget to take pictures of Hickam AFB when you're flying into or out of Honolulu.)
Just as a disclaimer, I'm a Software Engineering student applying my 1st Year Physics knowledge
Dear God. Please, please promise us you'll never attempt to do anything that involves Hardware Engineering.
As a slightly off-topic note, this sort of thing is exactly why real engineers get annoyed with universities that give out degrees in software "engineering". Proper engineering curricula preclude graduates from giving advice where they oughtn't.
Re:What Einstein WASN'T a genius at...
on
Einstein Unveiled
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I remember reading a story about how he called the telephone operator from a pay phone to ask what his phone number and address were -- he couldn't remember them.
Einstein never bothered to remember his own phone number, reasoning that he seldom needed to call himself. On rare occasions when he did, it was something he could look up.
As a student in a co-op education program, I move every four months, so I can't remember my phone number either. It's nice to know I have something in common with Einstein. (Yes, I study physics too, but I'm not going to flatter myself.)
With regard to famous mathematicians and physicists forgetting where they live, this joke has been told about many scientists.
Scientist X is moving today. Since he knows how absent-minded he is, he takes care to jot down his new address on a slip of paper. He has an important lecture to deliver, so his family moves while he is in class during the day. When Scientist X prepares to go to his new home, he realizes that he cannot find the piece of paper. Distraught, he returns to his old house, and sees a young girl sitting on the front step. He asks her, "Excuse me, little girl. Can you tell me to where the family who used to live here has moved?"
She immediately replies, "Of course, Daddy. Mom knew you'd forget, so she left me to remind you."
A quick survey of the web shows that Scientist X is usually mathematician Norbert Weiner, though a number of others are cited less frequently.
Please, someone mod the parent up. A protein at 1100 F? Boiling off a lot of the bound water associated with most proteins will badly denature them by the time you get up around the 200 F mark. (There are definite exceptions, however--prions possibly included.) In air, I would go so far as to say that any protein will oxidize (if not burst into flame) at 500 F or less. Just having all that thermal energy kicking around will facilitate rapid rearrangements of proteins, even under an inert atmosphere. Sure, prions are harder to inactivate than most other biohazards, but they still obey the laws of physics.
There was a series of Dilbert strips about this. The "Secretary with a crossbow" was apparently a big hit with underappreciated clerical staff. One of the strips (pardon small errors, this is from memory):
Moreover, the peculiarities that make quantum computing interesting (e.g. the ability to factorize in polynomial time) also make it completely inappropriate for mundane tasks. So please stop the "google in a cube" shit.
This article is about storage, not processing. And quantum bits of this type are pretty damn dense. Guess what--Google needs to store a lot of data. Yes, the experiment described isn't much more than an interesting proof-of-concept, but there is tremendous promise. "Google in a cube" is a bit of journalistic license, but I'll still be impressed when we're putting just the Google cache into a sugar cube.
1) You don't have to answer it. (I suppose it's different if it's paid for by the boss, and you're on the clock.) By restricting circulation of the number, I almost always only receive calls that I want to get, anyway. Aside: Please, set it to vibrate so as not to annoy those around you with your cute ring tones.
2) It's handy if you want to place an outgoing call. Late because you're stuck in traffic? Flat tire? Want to invite someone to meet you down at the pub? Going on a road trip with a group split between two cars? A cellular phone is a godsend if someone gets lost. Last night I was with a group of people helping a friend move. Her landline wasn't hooked up at the new location--a cell makes it so convenient to get pizza.
A cellular phone should be a helpful accessory. If it's an annoyance, then it is the fault of its owner, not the phone.
Out of curiosity, where did you aussies pick up those people to run your Government?
Disclaimer: IANAA (I am not an Australian).
The ministers that make up the Australian Cabinet are selected from the elected Members of Parliament in the ruling party. I imagine that they are chosen by the Prime Minister in consultation with his party. As in many other UK-style parliamentary democracies (ie England, Canada, etc.) there is little public input into the selection of ministers--though unpopular choices will often be shuffled off into other posts fairly quickly.
Deputy ministers hold unelected staff position, and they are usually the ones that actually have a good understanding of the portfolio and deal with it on a day-to-day basis. Some ministers are more clued-in than others.
There is no equivalent to the Senate confirmation process that exists in the United States, which is something of a mixed blessing. There isn't any public debate about choice of ministers. On the bright side, you have to option of not reelecting particularly annoying Ministers.
The system has its flaws--but it does mean that anyone who holds a cabinet post has had to win an election. In the States, I note that the current Attorney General was nominated shortly after losing his election bid to a dead man. (In principle, IIRC Ministers do not have to be sitting Members of Parliament, but this is almost unheard-of. A Minister without a seat would not be able to speak during government debates--utterly a sitting duck. The Opposition would eat him alive.)
I would assume any actual ET sightings would be "redacted out", as the Brits would say.
First, it would be "redacted", not "redacted out".
Second, "to redact" is a verb that is used regularly in certain specialized areas--often in law, for example. Literally, it means to "edit". In practice, it usually refers to the censorship of private documents for release to the public. It is not a Britishism.
Be that as it may, she still has an enormously incoherent quantum cosmology.
Short of actually reading any of her papers (I don't have time this morning, and I probably wouldn't understand them even if I did) I don't know that you should make a statement like that. Just because some hack at SciAm has tried to put a complicated theory into terms suitable for a lay audience--and possibly introduced errors of fact or omission in the process--I don't think it's fair to condemn her work.
Come back and talk to me after you've read some of Kalamara's published, peer-reviewed papers. If you have trouble with the difficult bits, most physicists are glad to talk about their work--perhaps you can email her.
but when was the last time any of us has seen a woman, let alone a woman that looks like that in our physics departments?
Yes, there are far too many old men in physics. Some cute young men, I suppose, but that isn't where my interests lie. Nevertheless, the tide is turning. Females are starting to show up on physics faculties, and female students make up an increasing fraction of undergraduation classes (nowhere near 50%, but the situation is improving).
This is only my humble opinion, but some of them really are hot.
I'm at the University of Waterloo right now, so you know that I have at least one supporting example.
Am I the only one that found some of the article's tone, and the cooking analogies, a bit sexist? I don't think the oven stuff at the end would have made it into the article if this work was being done by a man.
First, the article was written by a woman--perhaps that's where the 'chick stuff' came from. On closer reading, there is also evidence to suggest that the promising young physicist herself introduced the cooking analogies, which were only extended by the journalist. Remember, SciAm is targetting a popular audience (smarter than PopSci, but still). Articles like this will always try to make the person and his or her work seem more human. Scientific American ran a review of a biography of mathematician Paul Erdos a few years ago. The article emphasized his personal eccentricities and some funny anecdotes from his life--should we take SciAm to task for presenting a stereotypical view of the socially inept and out-of-touch mathematician?
Lastly, why the hell is cooking still considered women's work by the sexism police on Slashdot? I'm male and I make my living from physics, but I'm also a pretty good chef. Among my friends, the best cooks are 1) a database designer, 2) a nanomaterials chemist, and 3) a molecular biologist. Two are female, one male. I'll let the guy know he shouldn't be doing that girly stuff, but I'm sure going to miss his creme brulee.
The user interace is lacking severely. Bigger companies hire people who specialize in usability to the design the UI. Open-source projects have HORRID user interfaces...
This may have some truth to it in general, but I've come across some proprietary software solutions that have had absolutely appalling interfaces. Lotus Notes comes to mind. I was working in a hospital a couple of years ago, and suffering through Notes. On the other hand, since Notes is so badly broken in so many ways, despite our best efforts we couldn't get a single Outlook virus to propagate on our network.
Conversely, there are some people who write OSS that do care about interface design--as developers and users, if they make bad UI decisions, they have to put up with them. Really motivates a person to fix a bad interface.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
You're right, they shouldn't be calling people who don't like popups 'thieves'. That said, the word has been drastically diluted in its meaning thanks to Valenti, Rosen et al. For site authors whose first language probably isn't English (their sytax is funny, and some of their registration info leads me to believe they're Swedish) perhaps we can cut them a bit of slack.
To be fair, the content that they're trying to protect is their own. If they want to say that I have to do backflips to see it, that's their prerogative. I don't have to agree to their terms, and I don't have to see their content.
Your complaint sounds something like, "Yankee Stadium was built right out in public view. Anybody can just walk right up to it. It's unfair that as a condition of entry, the owners can charge money for access. Members of the public should be able to walk right in and wander about whenever they feel like it. I mean, it should be okay as long as they don't take somebody else's seat, right?" Most sites don't charge for their content, but they're not compelled to give it away. If these web sites want to try to enforce their particular revenue model, I wish them the best of luck. They're not hurting anybody but themselves, I suspect.
If they have that level of redundancy for the electrics then I see no reason why they shouldn't for the network.
Well, in a modern hospital, being without network access for a few minutes doesn't kill people. Losing power in an operating theatre can make soeone very dead, very quickly. Yes, procedures exist to handle such a situation, but there really isn't a good backup to say, a heart-lung machine.
I know, there are/.ers that would die without their DSL lines, but most of them don't live in hospitals.
Prednisolone is a steroid; it's used as an anti-inflammatory.
Immunosuppressants have long been a part of most transplant operations. And yes, for many transplants, a lifelong regimen of immunosuppressants is necessary. Patients are at increased risk of infection, but through carefully monitored doses and drug mixtures physicians try to strike a balance between preventing rejection and maintaining immune activity.
Immunosuppressants aren't necessary for corneal transplants because unlike nearly all other tissues that may be transplanted, there are no blood vessels through the cornea. The cornea is never exposed to the ravages of the recipient's immune system.
If it's big enough for a useful room, it's too big to move via road.
Okay. Normal loads are limited to widths of between eight and nine feet in most jurisdictions, IIRC. Why not take a 16' diameter precast pipe and have it sliced in half lengthwise? You get two U-shaped sections, each only eight feet across. At your construction site, place one U in a trench concave up, then mate the other half to it concave down. Seal the joint, and presto! You've doubled the size of the 'room' you can easily move by road.
Of course, the parent poster is probably right--if you're going to the trouble of rejoining segments anyway, you might as well use bits and pieces that are designed for the purpose. IANA Engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, seeding does cause unnatural rates of precipitation, in the sense that it is rain that otherwise likely would not have fallen. But there are physical processes at work that limit the size of raindrops and the speed at which they fall. Large, fast raindrops literally get blown apart by air resistance as they fall.
And of course, seeding often doesn't work, or it doesn't work well--you get a gentle rainfall, or a little bit of drizzle.
Of course, once we're sure we have a complete understanding, then let the weather modification begin.
I'm afraid that the early attempts at large-scale weather modification will always be experimental, no matter how much theory we throw at the problem first. Do we start experimenting sooner, or later?
The problem with that is that in many jurisdictions (in Canada, at least--I can't speak for other countries) taxi fares are regulated by municipal governments. The nice thing about this is that taxi companies have to compete on the basis of service, and cab companies can't unilaterally adjust their prices.
One man's Funny is another man's Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, I guess.
For big engineering, there is Mauna Kea. Several of the world's largest telescopes, sprouting like mushrooms from the top of an extinct volcano. Cough up a hundred and fifty bucks or so and you get a guided tour of the summit, as well as a ride up from the coast. And parkas--even in August it's bloody cold up there. The sunset from the top is to die for, and you're almost always above the clouds. It's like the surface of the moon--no vegetation, just dust. The guided tours also usually stop on the way down at around 10,000' and set up a smaller scope for some observing and general stargazing. Very cool.
This is science, not engineering, but you really should go snorkelling, or SCUBA diving if you have your papers. There's a lot of interesting life just about anywhere you get into the water.
More biology: the smallest, least settled island at the end of the chain (Kaui) is mostly rain forest. See the Grand Canyon of the Pacific, and hike through the forests. The Bali Ha'i scenes from the movie version of South Pacific were shot here. Very much worth the trip, since Aloha Airlines runs very inexpensive flights between the islands. (Don't forget to take pictures of Hickam AFB when you're flying into or out of Honolulu.)
I call BS. The parent poster is making all that stuff up.
Or am I the one that's bluffing?
Dear God. Please, please promise us you'll never attempt to do anything that involves Hardware Engineering.
As a slightly off-topic note, this sort of thing is exactly why real engineers get annoyed with universities that give out degrees in software "engineering". Proper engineering curricula preclude graduates from giving advice where they oughtn't.
Einstein never bothered to remember his own phone number, reasoning that he seldom needed to call himself. On rare occasions when he did, it was something he could look up.
As a student in a co-op education program, I move every four months, so I can't remember my phone number either. It's nice to know I have something in common with Einstein. (Yes, I study physics too, but I'm not going to flatter myself.)
With regard to famous mathematicians and physicists forgetting where they live, this joke has been told about many scientists.
A quick survey of the web shows that Scientist X is usually mathematician Norbert Weiner, though a number of others are cited less frequently.Please, someone mod the parent up. A protein at 1100 F? Boiling off a lot of the bound water associated with most proteins will badly denature them by the time you get up around the 200 F mark. (There are definite exceptions, however--prions possibly included.) In air, I would go so far as to say that any protein will oxidize (if not burst into flame) at 500 F or less. Just having all that thermal energy kicking around will facilitate rapid rearrangements of proteins, even under an inert atmosphere. Sure, prions are harder to inactivate than most other biohazards, but they still obey the laws of physics.
Dilbert: You've been harpooned, sir.
PHB: Yeah, but I capsized her desk.
This article is about storage, not processing. And quantum bits of this type are pretty damn dense. Guess what--Google needs to store a lot of data. Yes, the experiment described isn't much more than an interesting proof-of-concept, but there is tremendous promise. "Google in a cube" is a bit of journalistic license, but I'll still be impressed when we're putting just the Google cache into a sugar cube.
1) You don't have to answer it. (I suppose it's different if it's paid for by the boss, and you're on the clock.) By restricting circulation of the number, I almost always only receive calls that I want to get, anyway. Aside: Please, set it to vibrate so as not to annoy those around you with your cute ring tones.
2) It's handy if you want to place an outgoing call. Late because you're stuck in traffic? Flat tire? Want to invite someone to meet you down at the pub? Going on a road trip with a group split between two cars? A cellular phone is a godsend if someone gets lost. Last night I was with a group of people helping a friend move. Her landline wasn't hooked up at the new location--a cell makes it so convenient to get pizza.
A cellular phone should be a helpful accessory. If it's an annoyance, then it is the fault of its owner, not the phone.
Disclaimer: IANAA (I am not an Australian).
The ministers that make up the Australian Cabinet are selected from the elected Members of Parliament in the ruling party. I imagine that they are chosen by the Prime Minister in consultation with his party. As in many other UK-style parliamentary democracies (ie England, Canada, etc.) there is little public input into the selection of ministers--though unpopular choices will often be shuffled off into other posts fairly quickly.
Deputy ministers hold unelected staff position, and they are usually the ones that actually have a good understanding of the portfolio and deal with it on a day-to-day basis. Some ministers are more clued-in than others.
There is no equivalent to the Senate confirmation process that exists in the United States, which is something of a mixed blessing. There isn't any public debate about choice of ministers. On the bright side, you have to option of not reelecting particularly annoying Ministers.
The system has its flaws--but it does mean that anyone who holds a cabinet post has had to win an election. In the States, I note that the current Attorney General was nominated shortly after losing his election bid to a dead man. (In principle, IIRC Ministers do not have to be sitting Members of Parliament, but this is almost unheard-of. A Minister without a seat would not be able to speak during government debates--utterly a sitting duck. The Opposition would eat him alive.)
First, it would be "redacted", not "redacted out".
Second, "to redact" is a verb that is used regularly in certain specialized areas--often in law, for example. Literally, it means to "edit". In practice, it usually refers to the censorship of private documents for release to the public. It is not a Britishism.
Ironic that someone who wants a proofing job misspelled "Matthew".
...because Flagstaff doesn't want to share their name, either.
Short of actually reading any of her papers (I don't have time this morning, and I probably wouldn't understand them even if I did) I don't know that you should make a statement like that. Just because some hack at SciAm has tried to put a complicated theory into terms suitable for a lay audience--and possibly introduced errors of fact or omission in the process--I don't think it's fair to condemn her work.
Come back and talk to me after you've read some of Kalamara's published, peer-reviewed papers. If you have trouble with the difficult bits, most physicists are glad to talk about their work--perhaps you can email her.
Yes, there are far too many old men in physics. Some cute young men, I suppose, but that isn't where my interests lie. Nevertheless, the tide is turning. Females are starting to show up on physics faculties, and female students make up an increasing fraction of undergraduation classes (nowhere near 50%, but the situation is improving).
This is only my humble opinion, but some of them really are hot.
I'm at the University of Waterloo right now, so you know that I have at least one supporting example.
First, the article was written by a woman--perhaps that's where the 'chick stuff' came from. On closer reading, there is also evidence to suggest that the promising young physicist herself introduced the cooking analogies, which were only extended by the journalist. Remember, SciAm is targetting a popular audience (smarter than PopSci, but still). Articles like this will always try to make the person and his or her work seem more human. Scientific American ran a review of a biography of mathematician Paul Erdos a few years ago. The article emphasized his personal eccentricities and some funny anecdotes from his life--should we take SciAm to task for presenting a stereotypical view of the socially inept and out-of-touch mathematician?
Lastly, why the hell is cooking still considered women's work by the sexism police on Slashdot? I'm male and I make my living from physics, but I'm also a pretty good chef. Among my friends, the best cooks are 1) a database designer, 2) a nanomaterials chemist, and 3) a molecular biologist. Two are female, one male. I'll let the guy know he shouldn't be doing that girly stuff, but I'm sure going to miss his creme brulee.
This may have some truth to it in general, but I've come across some proprietary software solutions that have had absolutely appalling interfaces. Lotus Notes comes to mind. I was working in a hospital a couple of years ago, and suffering through Notes. On the other hand, since Notes is so badly broken in so many ways, despite our best efforts we couldn't get a single Outlook virus to propagate on our network.
Conversely, there are some people who write OSS that do care about interface design--as developers and users, if they make bad UI decisions, they have to put up with them. Really motivates a person to fix a bad interface.
You're right, they shouldn't be calling people who don't like popups 'thieves'. That said, the word has been drastically diluted in its meaning thanks to Valenti, Rosen et al. For site authors whose first language probably isn't English (their sytax is funny, and some of their registration info leads me to believe they're Swedish) perhaps we can cut them a bit of slack.
To be fair, the content that they're trying to protect is their own. If they want to say that I have to do backflips to see it, that's their prerogative. I don't have to agree to their terms, and I don't have to see their content.
Your complaint sounds something like, "Yankee Stadium was built right out in public view. Anybody can just walk right up to it. It's unfair that as a condition of entry, the owners can charge money for access. Members of the public should be able to walk right in and wander about whenever they feel like it. I mean, it should be okay as long as they don't take somebody else's seat, right?" Most sites don't charge for their content, but they're not compelled to give it away. If these web sites want to try to enforce their particular revenue model, I wish them the best of luck. They're not hurting anybody but themselves, I suspect.
I would be much happier if PEOPLE with GUNS killed TROLLS.
Well, in a modern hospital, being without network access for a few minutes doesn't kill people. Losing power in an operating theatre can make soeone very dead, very quickly. Yes, procedures exist to handle such a situation, but there really isn't a good backup to say, a heart-lung machine.
I know, there are /.ers that would die without their DSL lines, but most of them don't live in hospitals.
Immunosuppressants have long been a part of most transplant operations. And yes, for many transplants, a lifelong regimen of immunosuppressants is necessary. Patients are at increased risk of infection, but through carefully monitored doses and drug mixtures physicians try to strike a balance between preventing rejection and maintaining immune activity.
Immunosuppressants aren't necessary for corneal transplants because unlike nearly all other tissues that may be transplanted, there are no blood vessels through the cornea. The cornea is never exposed to the ravages of the recipient's immune system.
Okay. Normal loads are limited to widths of between eight and nine feet in most jurisdictions, IIRC. Why not take a 16' diameter precast pipe and have it sliced in half lengthwise? You get two U-shaped sections, each only eight feet across. At your construction site, place one U in a trench concave up, then mate the other half to it concave down. Seal the joint, and presto! You've doubled the size of the 'room' you can easily move by road.
Of course, the parent poster is probably right--if you're going to the trouble of rejoining segments anyway, you might as well use bits and pieces that are designed for the purpose. IANA Engineer.