There may be political reasons why you can go through high school and learn nothing about rhetoric, reasoning, the difference between science and not-science, and the basic history of science, but there's no real reason.
Somewhere, in a place far away, Carl Sagan is smiling.
....I think one problem is that science itself seems like complete voodoo to the layperson. I mean, sure, it's easy to detect bad pseudoscience if you already have a good idea how science works. But if you know next to nothing about physics, mathematics, etc. then I think it would be quite hard to distingush the chaff from the wheat. Both have mountains of jargon, both seem to answer a question by posing an idea that on some level makes sense. I think that's what's so deceptive about a lot of junk science -- it's very similar in a lot of respects to the real stuff. Take infomercials, they do a very convincing job of selling sketchy "scientific sounding" reasoning as to why their product or service is useful. If you don't have the background to pick up on the fallacies, then sure, a "high tech magnet that you place on the fuel line of your car to align the gasoline molecules" sure sounds like a good idea. Throw in a respectible-looking guy in a white lab coat and you've made quite a few sales.
...and I guess that's your point, that we should be teaching the "meta-information" on how to sniff the signs of bad science, if not the actual science itself. My point is that's easier said than done.
True, it's not wow and flutter. But if you've ever used one of those adaptors, you know that the alignment can be a bitch. The two heads have to match up pretty well, otherwise the volume is really low or its just generally really crappy sound. On occasion you have to stick your finger in there and press on the adaptor to move it a bit to try and get better sound. And since the tape deck's spindle is still turning there are things moving in there, and on long trips you often have to do this procedure every so often. Sometimes if it's borderline you can hear the sound come and go repeatedly as the adaptor moves ever-so-slightly if its dummy take-up reels don't line up quite right with the deck's turning spindles. All in all it's not the best solution in the world.
That's right...because Windows out of the box has nowhere near the functionality of Linux. How many programming languages come with Windows? (shell, vbscript, maybe jscript -no compiled languages). How many development environments come with Windows? (one - notepad. Unless you count copy con). All the nifty management tools that let you see what's going on...separate purchase. How many DBMS's come with Windows? None.
Oh come on, how is that a valid argument? I can go download Cygwin and install almost all of the major GNU applications that you mention. If having 'gcc' available somehow makes a platform better, then Linux and Windows are equal in that respect.
But that doesn't matter. You're comparing applications, not operating systems. If you want to go down that road, I'm afraid it's a slippery slope, there a truckload of high quality applications available for Windows that are not available for Linux; and vice versa.
The point is, if you're going to bring available apps into the comparison, then its ridiculous to try to compare a typical Linux distribution to a solitary Microsoft Windows Install CD.
Compare the Linux kernel to the Windows kernel; compare Linux and all its available apps to Windows and all its available apps; but do not try to tell me that Linux is somehow better because it comes with a bunch of applications on the same CD as the kernel.
One of my major complaints about the teaching of science in western academia is that it is taught without any reference to the history of science.
I agree, to some extent. The problem is this: go to any college student majoring in a technical field. Ask him or her how enthusiastic they are about being forced to take an additional history of science course. I think you will find a large percentage of students would react... poorly... to that idea.
The problem is that colleges/universities that have technical programs (Engineering, Computer Science, etc.) are being shoved into this uncomfortable position of students demanding what amounts to skills training from a technical college. They want useful, "real life" skills that can be immediately applied to a job after graduation. Classes in the Humanities, or anything designed to make one more well-rounded, are seen as an impediment.
Students are often under extreme pressure financially (not to mention emotionally, temporally, etc.) and this only sharpens their desire to get out with a degree and start earning some money, which means that Humanities requirements are loathed.
It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but that's the way it is.
If you are interested in the mind numbing details of the chemistry of gasoline, how oxygenates such as ethanol work, etc., I suggest you check out the rec.autos.tech Gasoline FAQ. It's a bit dated (96?) so some of the programs described as "future" are really current or past trends. But it's still a pretty good read if you want the low-down on what's actually in gasoline, what octane is all about, and why we have these pesky oxygenates. Here's the table of contents to whet your appetite.
3. What Advantage will I gain from reading this FAQ? 4. What is Gasoline? 4.1 Where does crude oil come from?. 4.2 When will we run out of crude oil?. 4.3 What is the history of gasoline? 4.4 What are the hydrocarbons in gasoline? 4.5 What are oxygenates? 4.6 Why were alkyl lead compounds added? 4.7 Why not use other organometallic compounds? 4.8 What do the refining processes do? 4.9 What energy is released when gasoline is burned? 4.10 What are the gasoline specifications? 4.11 What are the effects of the specified fuel properties? 4.12 Are brands different? 4.13 What is a typical composition? 4.14 Is gasoline toxic or carcinogenic? 4.15 Is unleaded gasoline more toxic than leaded? 4.16 Is reformulated gasoline more toxic than unleaded? 4.17 Are all oxygenated gasolines also reformulated gasolines? 5. Why is Gasoline Composition Changing? 5.1 Why pick on cars and gasoline? 5.2 Why are there seasonal changes? 5.3 Why were alkyl lead compounds removed? 5.4 Why are evaporative emissions a problem? 5.5 Why control tailpipe emissions? 5.6 Why do exhaust catalysts influence fuel composition? 5.7 Why are "cold start" emissions so important? 5.8 When will the emissions be "clean enough"? 5.9 Why are only some gasoline compounds restricted? 5.10 What does "renewable" fuel or oxygenate mean? 5.11 Will oxygenated gasoline damage my vehicle? 5.12 What does "reactivity" of emissions mean? 5.13 What are "carbonyl" compounds? 5.14 What are "gross polluters"? 6. What do Fuel Octane ratings really indicate? 6.1 Who invented Octane Ratings? 6.2 Why do we need Octane Ratings? 6.3 What fuel property does the Octane Rating measure? 6.4 Why are two ratings used to obtain the pump rating? 6.5 What does the Motor Octane rating measure? 6.6 What does the Research Octane rating measure? 6.7 Why is the difference called "sensitivity"? 6.8 What sort of engine is used to rate fuels? 6.9 How is the Octane rating determined? 6.10 What is the Octane Distribution of the fuel? 6.11 What is a "delta Research Octane number"? 6.12 How do other fuel properties affect octane? 6.13 Can higher octane fuels give me more power? 6.14 Does low octane fuel increase engine wear? 6.15 Can I mix different octane fuel grades? 6.16 What happens if I use the wrong octane fuel? 6.17 Can I tune the engine to use another octane fuel? 6.18 How can I increase the fuel octane? 6.19 Are aviation gasoline octane numbers comparable? 6.20 Can mothballs increase octane? 7. What parameters determine octane requirement? 7.1 What is the Octane Number Requirement of a Vehicle? 7.2 What is the effect of Compression ratio? 7.3 What is the effect of changing the air-fuel ratio? 7.4 What is the effect of changing the ignition timing 7.5 What is the effect of engine management systems? 7.6 What is the effect of temperature and Load? 7.7 What is the effect of engine speed? 7.8 What is the effect of engine deposits? 7.9 What is the Road Octane Number of a Fuel? 7.10 What is the effect of air temperature?. 7.11 What is the effect of altitude?. 7.12 What is the effect of humidity?. 7.13 What does water injection achieve?. 8. How can I identify and cure other fuel-related problems? 8.1 What causes an empty fuel tank? 8.2 Is knock the only abnormal combustion problem? 8.3 Can I prevent carburetter icing? 8.4 Should I store fuel to avoid the oxygenate season? 8.5 Can I improve fuel economy by using quality gasolines? 8.6 What is "stale" fuel, and should I use it? 8.7 How can I remove water in the fuel tank? 8.8 Can I use unleaded on older vehicles? 8.9 How serious is valve seat recession on older vehicles? 9. Alternative Fuels and Additives 9.1 Do fuel additives work? 9.2 Can a quality fuel help a sick engine? 9.3 What are the advantages of alcohols and ethers? 9.4 Why are CNG and LPG considered "cleaner" fuels. 9.5 Why are hydrogen-powered cars not available? 9.6 What are "fuel cells" ? 9.7 What is a "hybrid" vehicle? 9.8 What about other alternative fuels? 9.9 What about alternative oxidants? 10. Historical Legends 10.1 The myth of Triptane 10.2 From Honda Civic to Formula 1 Winner. 11. References 11.1 Books and Research Papers 11.2 Suggested Further Reading
Finally, growing lots of corn improves the carbon equation
What about the carbon you burn in actually producing the stuff? Diesel fuel for tractors; electricity for pumping, irrigation; energy used producing pesticides and fertilizers; energy used in the refinerty...
By the time you're done planting, watering, growing, harvesting, storing, and refining this stuff into ethanol (and then burning the ethanol), have you put more back into the atmos then you took out?
"OK, then, I hope you've figured out how to send your broadcasts by carrier pigeon [ietf.org] because in 2006 you won't have any broadcast spectrum that fits your requirements."
The law says that they must switch over to digital broadcasts by 2006 or when 85% of the viewing public has the means to receive the broadcasts, whichever comes later. Do you really think they are somehow going to sell 90 million HDTV sets before 2006? UHF isn't going anywhere anytime soon, at least unless things change drastically.
is, why can't there be a smiliar law drafted that applies to SPAM like junk faxes?
What you've got to remember is that government doesn't move as fast as you think it does. The fax machine has been around forever -- Xerox had one in 1966 that operated over normal telephone lines. However, they didn't really take off until the early to mid 1980's, and had become common by the end of the decade. I'll use 1987 for the sake of argument. 47 USC 227, the "junk fax" law, took effect in 1994, about 7 years after the fax machine hit its peak.
Sure, you might say that spam is getting close to being about 7 years old, but I would argue that the spam issue is much less clear-cut than the junk fax issue. It's harder to define actual monetary damages, and there's many more people involved other than the sender and receiver. On top of that, a lot of people -- some with actual influeunce (CEOs, etc) -- don't want any government regulations.
So I would not be terribly surprised that spam laws are nonexistant at this point.
Clearly, the author said that buttons and anything that requires gripping is out of the question. I'd say about a quarter of the responses here fail on this account.
I think you should get out your yellow pages and look under the "Accessability" section, and get in contact with some people that know what they're talking about. (Surely she's already got some specialized equipment for her condition so I'm sure this has already happened.)
Having said that, it makes an interesting Ask Slashdot, so here's my take. I like the puff/sip tube ideas, but if that isn't practical I would look into somehow signaling with eye movement or blinks. Again I'm sure they sell such things but since the question was how to do it on a shoestring budget (?!) I'll bite.
I would first find some sort of non-toxic paint that glows under a blacklight. A common yellow highligher would do, but there are others that glow with more contrast. Paint dots (or some other symbol) on the eyelids. Mount a small fluorescent blacklight somewhere near the headboard so that the dots glow brightly. Mount a cheap webcam somewhere in the line of sight of the wife. Now rig some software to recognise some pattern of blinks.
The idea is that if she is in trouble, she looks directly into the webcam (probably mounted on the ceiling, or otherwise in her line of sight) and blinks a pattern. The paint on the eyelids should provide enough contrast with the blacklight so that it's easy to signal process -- there would be high contrast with the rest of the scene, and the unique hue should be easy to spot. If she can open and close the eyelids fully (i.e., blink) it should provide a pretty good signal. The rest is dorking around with software and processing, but hey, this is Slashdot right?
And as an added bonus, you can also rid yourself of thetans and save the $50,000 cleansing fee, or whatever it is that the Church of Scientology charges for hooking up a multimeter to your skin...
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine waving your hand to change the channel, volume, etc.
"This is not the channel you're looking for...."
There may be political reasons why you can go through high school and learn nothing about rhetoric, reasoning, the difference between science and not-science, and the basic history of science, but there's no real reason.
....I think one problem is that science itself seems like complete voodoo to the layperson. I mean, sure, it's easy to detect bad pseudoscience if you already have a good idea how science works. But if you know next to nothing about physics, mathematics, etc. then I think it would be quite hard to distingush the chaff from the wheat. Both have mountains of jargon, both seem to answer a question by posing an idea that on some level makes sense. I think that's what's so deceptive about a lot of junk science -- it's very similar in a lot of respects to the real stuff. Take infomercials, they do a very convincing job of selling sketchy "scientific sounding" reasoning as to why their product or service is useful. If you don't have the background to pick up on the fallacies, then sure, a "high tech magnet that you place on the fuel line of your car to align the gasoline molecules" sure sounds like a good idea. Throw in a respectible-looking guy in a white lab coat and you've made quite a few sales.
...and I guess that's your point, that we should be teaching the "meta-information" on how to sniff the signs of bad science, if not the actual science itself. My point is that's easier said than done.
Somewhere, in a place far away, Carl Sagan is smiling.
True, it's not wow and flutter. But if you've ever used one of those adaptors, you know that the alignment can be a bitch. The two heads have to match up pretty well, otherwise the volume is really low or its just generally really crappy sound. On occasion you have to stick your finger in there and press on the adaptor to move it a bit to try and get better sound. And since the tape deck's spindle is still turning there are things moving in there, and on long trips you often have to do this procedure every so often. Sometimes if it's borderline you can hear the sound come and go repeatedly as the adaptor moves ever-so-slightly if its dummy take-up reels don't line up quite right with the deck's turning spindles. All in all it's not the best solution in the world.
Dear Slashdot,
I'm having trouble meeting women, can you offer any advice?
That's right...because Windows out of the box has nowhere near the functionality of Linux. How many programming languages come with Windows? (shell, vbscript, maybe jscript -no compiled languages). How many development environments come with Windows? (one - notepad. Unless you count copy con). All the nifty management tools that let you see what's going on...separate purchase. How many DBMS's come with Windows? None.
Oh come on, how is that a valid argument? I can go download Cygwin and install almost all of the major GNU applications that you mention. If having 'gcc' available somehow makes a platform better, then Linux and Windows are equal in that respect.
But that doesn't matter. You're comparing applications, not operating systems. If you want to go down that road, I'm afraid it's a slippery slope, there a truckload of high quality applications available for Windows that are not available for Linux; and vice versa.
The point is, if you're going to bring available apps into the comparison, then its ridiculous to try to compare a typical Linux distribution to a solitary Microsoft Windows Install CD.
Compare the Linux kernel to the Windows kernel; compare Linux and all its available apps to Windows and all its available apps; but do not try to tell me that Linux is somehow better because it comes with a bunch of applications on the same CD as the kernel.
One of my major complaints about the teaching of science in western academia is that it is taught without any reference to the history of science.
... poorly ... to that idea.
I agree, to some extent. The problem is this: go to any college student majoring in a technical field. Ask him or her how enthusiastic they are about being forced to take an additional history of science course. I think you will find a large percentage of students would react
The problem is that colleges/universities that have technical programs (Engineering, Computer Science, etc.) are being shoved into this uncomfortable position of students demanding what amounts to skills training from a technical college. They want useful, "real life" skills that can be immediately applied to a job after graduation. Classes in the Humanities, or anything designed to make one more well-rounded, are seen as an impediment.
Students are often under extreme pressure financially (not to mention emotionally, temporally, etc.) and this only sharpens their desire to get out with a degree and start earning some money, which means that Humanities requirements are loathed.
It's unfortunate that it has come to this, but that's the way it is.
If you are interested in the mind numbing details of the chemistry of gasoline, how oxygenates such as ethanol work, etc., I suggest you check out the rec.autos.tech Gasoline FAQ. It's a bit dated (96?) so some of the programs described as "future" are really current or past trends. But it's still a pretty good read if you want the low-down on what's actually in gasoline, what octane is all about, and why we have these pesky oxygenates. Here's the table of contents to whet your appetite.
3. What Advantage will I gain from reading this FAQ?
4. What is Gasoline?
4.1 Where does crude oil come from?.
4.2 When will we run out of crude oil?.
4.3 What is the history of gasoline?
4.4 What are the hydrocarbons in gasoline?
4.5 What are oxygenates?
4.6 Why were alkyl lead compounds added?
4.7 Why not use other organometallic compounds?
4.8 What do the refining processes do?
4.9 What energy is released when gasoline is burned?
4.10 What are the gasoline specifications?
4.11 What are the effects of the specified fuel properties?
4.12 Are brands different?
4.13 What is a typical composition?
4.14 Is gasoline toxic or carcinogenic?
4.15 Is unleaded gasoline more toxic than leaded?
4.16 Is reformulated gasoline more toxic than unleaded?
4.17 Are all oxygenated gasolines also reformulated gasolines?
5. Why is Gasoline Composition Changing?
5.1 Why pick on cars and gasoline?
5.2 Why are there seasonal changes?
5.3 Why were alkyl lead compounds removed?
5.4 Why are evaporative emissions a problem?
5.5 Why control tailpipe emissions?
5.6 Why do exhaust catalysts influence fuel composition?
5.7 Why are "cold start" emissions so important?
5.8 When will the emissions be "clean enough"?
5.9 Why are only some gasoline compounds restricted?
5.10 What does "renewable" fuel or oxygenate mean?
5.11 Will oxygenated gasoline damage my vehicle?
5.12 What does "reactivity" of emissions mean?
5.13 What are "carbonyl" compounds?
5.14 What are "gross polluters"?
6. What do Fuel Octane ratings really indicate?
6.1 Who invented Octane Ratings?
6.2 Why do we need Octane Ratings?
6.3 What fuel property does the Octane Rating measure?
6.4 Why are two ratings used to obtain the pump rating?
6.5 What does the Motor Octane rating measure?
6.6 What does the Research Octane rating measure?
6.7 Why is the difference called "sensitivity"?
6.8 What sort of engine is used to rate fuels?
6.9 How is the Octane rating determined?
6.10 What is the Octane Distribution of the fuel?
6.11 What is a "delta Research Octane number"?
6.12 How do other fuel properties affect octane?
6.13 Can higher octane fuels give me more power?
6.14 Does low octane fuel increase engine wear?
6.15 Can I mix different octane fuel grades?
6.16 What happens if I use the wrong octane fuel?
6.17 Can I tune the engine to use another octane fuel?
6.18 How can I increase the fuel octane?
6.19 Are aviation gasoline octane numbers comparable?
6.20 Can mothballs increase octane?
7. What parameters determine octane requirement?
7.1 What is the Octane Number Requirement of a Vehicle?
7.2 What is the effect of Compression ratio?
7.3 What is the effect of changing the air-fuel ratio?
7.4 What is the effect of changing the ignition timing
7.5 What is the effect of engine management systems?
7.6 What is the effect of temperature and Load?
7.7 What is the effect of engine speed?
7.8 What is the effect of engine deposits?
7.9 What is the Road Octane Number of a Fuel?
7.10 What is the effect of air temperature?.
7.11 What is the effect of altitude?.
7.12 What is the effect of humidity?.
7.13 What does water injection achieve?.
8. How can I identify and cure other fuel-related problems?
8.1 What causes an empty fuel tank?
8.2 Is knock the only abnormal combustion problem?
8.3 Can I prevent carburetter icing?
8.4 Should I store fuel to avoid the oxygenate season?
8.5 Can I improve fuel economy by using quality gasolines?
8.6 What is "stale" fuel, and should I use it?
8.7 How can I remove water in the fuel tank?
8.8 Can I use unleaded on older vehicles?
8.9 How serious is valve seat recession on older vehicles?
9. Alternative Fuels and Additives
9.1 Do fuel additives work?
9.2 Can a quality fuel help a sick engine?
9.3 What are the advantages of alcohols and ethers?
9.4 Why are CNG and LPG considered "cleaner" fuels.
9.5 Why are hydrogen-powered cars not available?
9.6 What are "fuel cells" ?
9.7 What is a "hybrid" vehicle?
9.8 What about other alternative fuels?
9.9 What about alternative oxidants?
10. Historical Legends
10.1 The myth of Triptane
10.2 From Honda Civic to Formula 1 Winner.
11. References
11.1 Books and Research Papers
11.2 Suggested Further Reading
Finally, growing lots of corn improves the carbon equation
What about the carbon you burn in actually producing the stuff? Diesel fuel for tractors; electricity for pumping, irrigation; energy used producing pesticides and fertilizers; energy used in the refinerty...
By the time you're done planting, watering, growing, harvesting, storing, and refining this stuff into ethanol (and then burning the ethanol), have you put more back into the atmos then you took out?
"OK, then, I hope you've figured out how to send your broadcasts by carrier pigeon [ietf.org] because in 2006 you won't have any broadcast spectrum that fits your requirements."
The law says that they must switch over to digital broadcasts by 2006 or when 85% of the viewing public has the means to receive the broadcasts, whichever comes later. Do you really think they are somehow going to sell 90 million HDTV sets before 2006? UHF isn't going anywhere anytime soon, at least unless things change drastically.
is, why can't there be a smiliar law drafted that applies to SPAM like junk faxes?
What you've got to remember is that government doesn't move as fast as you think it does. The fax machine has been around forever -- Xerox had one in 1966 that operated over normal telephone lines. However, they didn't really take off until the early to mid 1980's, and had become common by the end of the decade. I'll use 1987 for the sake of argument. 47 USC 227, the "junk fax" law, took effect in 1994, about 7 years after the fax machine hit its peak.
Sure, you might say that spam is getting close to being about 7 years old, but I would argue that the spam issue is much less clear-cut than the junk fax issue. It's harder to define actual monetary damages, and there's many more people involved other than the sender and receiver. On top of that, a lot of people -- some with actual influeunce (CEOs, etc) -- don't want any government regulations.
So I would not be terribly surprised that spam laws are nonexistant at this point.
Clearly, the author said that buttons and anything that requires gripping is out of the question. I'd say about a quarter of the responses here fail on this account.
I think you should get out your yellow pages and look under the "Accessability" section, and get in contact with some people that know what they're talking about. (Surely she's already got some specialized equipment for her condition so I'm sure this has already happened.)
Having said that, it makes an interesting Ask Slashdot, so here's my take. I like the puff/sip tube ideas, but if that isn't practical I would look into somehow signaling with eye movement or blinks. Again I'm sure they sell such things but since the question was how to do it on a shoestring budget (?!) I'll bite.
I would first find some sort of non-toxic paint that glows under a blacklight. A common yellow highligher would do, but there are others that glow with more contrast. Paint dots (or some other symbol) on the eyelids. Mount a small fluorescent blacklight somewhere near the headboard so that the dots glow brightly. Mount a cheap webcam somewhere in the line of sight of the wife. Now rig some software to recognise some pattern of blinks.
The idea is that if she is in trouble, she looks directly into the webcam (probably mounted on the ceiling, or otherwise in her line of sight) and blinks a pattern. The paint on the eyelids should provide enough contrast with the blacklight so that it's easy to signal process -- there would be high contrast with the rest of the scene, and the unique hue should be easy to spot. If she can open and close the eyelids fully (i.e., blink) it should provide a pretty good signal. The rest is dorking around with software and processing, but hey, this is Slashdot right?
And as an added bonus, you can also rid yourself of thetans and save the $50,000 cleansing fee, or whatever it is that the Church of Scientology charges for hooking up a multimeter to your skin...