what you perceived as 'sag' are in fact manufacturing artifacts.
The way modern plate glass is made is to float a layer of molten glass on the surface of a bed of molten Tin. This allows the glass to harden to a solid, while sitting on a perfectly level surface.
The way plate glass was made up until the mid 1900's was to place a large blob of soft glass on a very large turntable, and spin it. This resulted in the glass spreading over the turntable, forming a generally flat and mostly smooth surface. Due to centrifugal forces, the outside rim of this large round plate would be thicker than the inner area. This large disc would then be cut into squares, with the waste glass recycled back into the glass making process.
Obviously, spinning glass like a pizza does not make a pane of glass free from distortion and imperfections, thus causing the sagging ripples you witnessed in the house you speak of. (I lived part of my childhood in a house built in 1918, and it also had glass that appeared to have deep ripples and sags in it, which caused me to learn about the glass making process.)
Thank God. I was expecting to explain the manufacturing process and instillation methods of window glazers of old all over again. You have saved me the hassle.
Actually, There has been some shift back to a taller, narrower tire lately. The idea being they are keeping the same ground contact patch area, only in a different orientation, which produces better traction in wet conditions, additionally, for reasons that are math, they improve fuel efficiency. http://www.bridgestone.com/corporate/news/2013030502.html
"If anyone tells you not to re-invent the wheel, ignore them. The first wheel probably fell apart after about 50 feet. Now wheels last for thousands of miles, at incredible are made from space age materials, and are only related to the original wheel in that they are mostly round. Re-invent the wheel all you want." - Some AC years ago.
same here, but, hilariously, the local box store (Alco) stocks(and sells) the new digital over the air rabbit ears. I really wonder just how pissed people get when they buy the antenna, hook it up, and NOTHING HAPPENS.
a plastic bottle of 5 lbs of gun powder doesn't set off a metal detector either.
Neither does a ceramic canister of high explosives.(which would be far more destructive than a plastic gunpowder device) Which is why the TSA looks at your naked body at the airport. Either way, the privacy and decency of sane and innocent individuals will be shredded and reduced to sawdust moistened with the tears of our founding fathers.
The myth that Mythbusters addressed was not the "rooftop treadmill' one. They expressly where testing the 'myth' that a plane on a treadmill *can not* take off.
Saying that they misunderstood the myth is just pedantic, they understood it just fine, and then demonstrated that the plane CAN take off on a treadmill, and will simply traverse the same lateral distance in space to take off as it would where it on a normal runway, and the treadmill has no effect on its performance. What they did not do was crash off the roof of a building, because that would be stupid.
the fun part is that the Mythbusters tested this FULL SCALE with a prop aircraft on a giant treadmill created by pulling a (very long) mat with a very large truck. The plane took off just like normal.
I'm not discounting the fact they actually needed the whale meat to survive at the time, I'm saying that there is an attitude of " you bomb us, then you tell us to eat whales, now you tell us not to eat whales, make up your mind!"
Yes, I realize its a bit more complex than that, but a weariness of western interference is a factor.
No no, thats what started this shit in the first place. By the end of world war 2, they had completely stopped whaling, but MacAurther told them to start again to 'revive their economy' and 'provide food' during reconstruction. We literally encouraged the establishment of Whale meat as a nation-wide food, where before it had pretty well been abandoned.
the reason they won't back down on it now is Japan is pretty tired of the west telling it what to do.
everyone with access to decent high speed internet you mean. More than half the US population still only has access to dial up or latency heavy satellite internet. So yeah, maybe YOU stream all your 1080p movies, but a lot of us are still stuck in the dark ages, where if we want to watch a movie, we queue it up from netflix, and pop it in the DVD or BlueRay player when it arrives in the mail.
As for switching and distributing movies on flash drives, I can't think of any reason distributors would want to switch from a 1.80$ plastic disk to a 5$ drive with more potential points of failure.
I'm undoing all my mod points in this thread, but my problem with antibacterial soap is the fact that there is virtually NO liquid soaps available that are NOT antibacterial now. Seriously, go look at the soap isle at your grocery store. Virtually all the dish soaps are antibacterial, as are the 'hand' soaps (the ones for your bathroom sink). Short of buying the 15$ for 7 ounces of special organic soap, there is no non antibacterial option available for consumers (no reasonably priced one that is). If the FDA chooses to regulate it, at least a few companies will probably quit using it, thus finally giving the consumer a choice in the matter.
THANK YOU. I went to college, got my bachelors in Industrial Technology (shop class), minor in Computer Science. graduated well, realized my degree was mainly designed to go and teach shop class, and promptly spent the next 7 years working construction. I learned more useful skills in the first year after college than I did in the four years I was there. I've framed houses, poured concrete, installed flagstone and tile, hung sheet-rock, built cabinets, installed windows, trimmed doors, painted miles of walls, and installed metal roofing, just to start. Why? hell, when it comes right down to it, It was more interesting. Lots of my friends from college are now working in fields that have nothing to do with their major field of study. I have a english major friend with a masters that worked for Microsoft, I have another that studied biology that ended up doing chemical cleanup. The point is, College was useful, mainly in that it taught us to knuckle down, get work done, and turn it in on time. If you already know how to do that, just go get a job in something that interests you, and work your way up the old fashioned way.
a surprisingly large amount I suppose, what with high rise buildings having floors that are also ceilings, which have plumbing for the floor above in them.
seeing as I risk hilarious levels of accidental death driving down the street, I'm thinking the trade-off between feces and risk of death is a pretty easy one. Also, awful diseases in human waste.
Look at it this way. If i want to make a business of rebuilding a engines, I could absolutely google it up "how to rebuild an engine", and get the "results" I need. However, Those results showing step by step how to do it, are absolutely no replacement for actually having properly rebuilt an engine, with someone guiding me along, to the final result with all the nuts and bolts and parts in the right places. And to make a business of such a task, I need to do it over and over again, until the proper process is instilled into me. The whole point of "Teaching Science" is not to get students to make brand new discovery, it is to teach them how to work in a proper scientific manner. The new discovery comes later in life, once they have been properly trained in the basics of how to DO science, which is what high school level science is really for.
I'm not saying that
if you get wrong results (although your data shows it) you get bad mark.
I'm saying that, in an educational setting, the student should be performing an experiment the teacher knows the outcomes of. If done properly, result A is produced. If poor procedure is followed, result B is the expected result. The student would be expected to perform the experiment to the best of their ability, trying to follow proper procedure. Ideally, they perform the test at least three times. Then, they write up their findings. Now, This is the "teachable moment" as we are so fond of calling it, the actual educational part of all this. The teacher reveals the intended results of the experiment. Then the students are tasked with reviewing their work, and discovering where mistakes in their procedure where made that caused result B, instead of result A. Perhaps at this stage, the students are tasked with performing the experiment one more time, this time correcting the error, to see how proper procedure results in result A. In a well designed exercise, Both result A and result B in the experiment produce fascinating results, thus investing students interest in science. (A fair amount of classroom science has results where A is interesting, and B is not, which also can spur a desire to learn how to do the process correctly, allowing for the exciting result.)
The point is, to foster an interest in science, while instilling in the student the knowledge and skills required to perform scientific processes with the appropriate rigor and technique. Once this is very well mastered, students move on to designing and executing their own experiments. As we have seen here, there is a great deal of discussion as to the various places proper scientific process was or was not followed in these students experiment. Couple that with the fact that the phenomena they are attempting to study is still in great debate by professional scientists around the world, and you have students set up in a situation where, despite having performed an experiment, they have not really learned anything about how to do science properly.
I would imagine that it was not "we outlaw experiments" but rather "outlaw experiments that are far above the level that the students can conduct with proper scientific process"
The point being, there are plenty of ways to get kids interested in science, that will allow them to do projects, and get results, that are not nearly as prone to producing aberrant results. MY understanding of how to teach kids science is to have them perform KNOWN experiments that the teacher KNOWS the possible outcomes of, because they have been performed thousands of times by well trained scientists. That way, the teacher can actually teach, because they will be able to tell if proper scientific process has been followed, based on the results, and guide the students into learning the proper scientific process.
Having young kids do actual research on subjects that are not well studied already, or with huge variable pools, does not really teach them anything. its just "I did an experiment and something happened! but because I don't know what was supposed to happen, I cant tell if I followed good scientific procedure." Which is really what they need to be learning.
Let me give a real world example I experienced as a student. In one of my electronics courses in college, we used a workbook designed by students of another school. It included lots of problems such as calculating the final resistance of a circuit. Now, in a professionally designed workbook, generally the problems are arranged so that when you finally produce an answer, the answer is in such a format that you can tell you've proceeded through the math correctly. In OUR workbook, the problems where not designed that way, the result being, you would spend twenty minutes hashing out a bunch of numbers, and the end result looked like it was spit out of a random number generator.
While it is true that real world applications of this sort of math would often produce similar results, In an education environment, producing obfuscated results simply confuses the student, You do the math, look at the answer you got, and think to yourself. "well, I hope that's right." Because the answer your derivations produced is in such a obtuse format.
The point is, in a learning environment, working toward a known answer is key to learning the steps in getting their correctly. Once you know how to take those steps, you can move on to taking those steps blindly towards unknown answers. I will concede that yes, there is eventually a time you may ask students to step out and work towards unknown answers, but I personally feel that such levels of education are better suited to college, possibly even masters degree level, simply because there is such a great quantity of knowledge required to properly proceed through the scientific process.
Think about it, Any high school chemistry teacher worth their pay would never ask a student to mix two chemicals together if the teacher did not know what the reaction would produce. The same standard should be held for biological science at that level.
probably. From what I can tell, the growing medium (of the dead-ish) seeds was paper towel on a plate, and they where given two cups of water a day. If it was blowing warm air out of the router, that two cups would not last long soaked into paper.
Yes, I have never known a plant growing the the wild to flourish. I also have never known a plant transplanted from the wild to flourish. Oh, wait, thats where all the plants came from in the first place. I must be confused.
Slashdot Mirror
what you perceived as 'sag' are in fact manufacturing artifacts.
The way modern plate glass is made is to float a layer of molten glass on the surface of a bed of molten Tin. This allows the glass to harden to a solid, while sitting on a perfectly level surface.
The way plate glass was made up until the mid 1900's was to place a large blob of soft glass on a very large turntable, and spin it. This resulted in the glass spreading over the turntable, forming a generally flat and mostly smooth surface. Due to centrifugal forces, the outside rim of this large round plate would be thicker than the inner area. This large disc would then be cut into squares, with the waste glass recycled back into the glass making process.
Obviously, spinning glass like a pizza does not make a pane of glass free from distortion and imperfections, thus causing the sagging ripples you witnessed in the house you speak of. (I lived part of my childhood in a house built in 1918, and it also had glass that appeared to have deep ripples and sags in it, which caused me to learn about the glass making process.)
Thank God. I was expecting to explain the manufacturing process and instillation methods of window glazers of old all over again. You have saved me the hassle.
Actually, There has been some shift back to a taller, narrower tire lately. The idea being they are keeping the same ground contact patch area, only in a different orientation, which produces better traction in wet conditions, additionally, for reasons that are math, they improve fuel efficiency.
http://www.bridgestone.com/corporate/news/2013030502.html
"If anyone tells you not to re-invent the wheel, ignore them. The first wheel probably fell apart after about 50 feet. Now wheels last for thousands of miles, at incredible are made from space age materials, and are only related to the original wheel in that they are mostly round. Re-invent the wheel all you want." - Some AC years ago.
Rocket engineers motto: "Simplify, and add lightness".
same here, but, hilariously, the local box store (Alco) stocks(and sells) the new digital over the air rabbit ears. I really wonder just how pissed people get when they buy the antenna, hook it up, and NOTHING HAPPENS.
a plastic bottle of 5 lbs of gun powder doesn't set off a metal detector either.
Neither does a ceramic canister of high explosives.(which would be far more destructive than a plastic gunpowder device) Which is why the TSA looks at your naked body at the airport. Either way, the privacy and decency of sane and innocent individuals will be shredded and reduced to sawdust moistened with the tears of our founding fathers.
"i'm sorry for some costs shifted to the employees"
The problem is, to the employee it feels like "Thanks for all your hard work. Now, to get paid, please insert 5$"
Its pretty hard to not feel like your being deliberately screwed over by this process.
The myth that Mythbusters addressed was not the "rooftop treadmill' one. They expressly where testing the 'myth' that a plane on a treadmill *can not* take off.
Saying that they misunderstood the myth is just pedantic, they understood it just fine, and then demonstrated that the plane CAN take off on a treadmill, and will simply traverse the same lateral distance in space to take off as it would where it on a normal runway, and the treadmill has no effect on its performance.
What they did not do was crash off the roof of a building, because that would be stupid.
the fun part is that the Mythbusters tested this FULL SCALE with a prop aircraft on a giant treadmill created by pulling a (very long) mat with a very large truck. The plane took off just like normal.
I'm not discounting the fact they actually needed the whale meat to survive at the time, I'm saying that there is an attitude of " you bomb us, then you tell us to eat whales, now you tell us not to eat whales, make up your mind!"
Yes, I realize its a bit more complex than that, but a weariness of western interference is a factor.
No no, thats what started this shit in the first place. By the end of world war 2, they had completely stopped whaling, but MacAurther told them to start again to 'revive their economy' and 'provide food' during reconstruction. We literally encouraged the establishment of Whale meat as a nation-wide food, where before it had pretty well been abandoned.
the reason they won't back down on it now is Japan is pretty tired of the west telling it what to do.
everyone with access to decent high speed internet you mean. More than half the US population still only has access to dial up or latency heavy satellite internet. So yeah, maybe YOU stream all your 1080p movies, but a lot of us are still stuck in the dark ages, where if we want to watch a movie, we queue it up from netflix, and pop it in the DVD or BlueRay player when it arrives in the mail.
As for switching and distributing movies on flash drives, I can't think of any reason distributors would want to switch from a 1.80$ plastic disk to a 5$ drive with more potential points of failure.
Thanks for the info, I guess its just one of the perils of living at the edge of the civilized world, as I like to call it.
I'm undoing all my mod points in this thread, but my problem with antibacterial soap is the fact that there is virtually NO liquid soaps available that are NOT antibacterial now. Seriously, go look at the soap isle at your grocery store. Virtually all the dish soaps are antibacterial, as are the 'hand' soaps (the ones for your bathroom sink). Short of buying the 15$ for 7 ounces of special organic soap, there is no non antibacterial option available for consumers (no reasonably priced one that is). If the FDA chooses to regulate it, at least a few companies will probably quit using it, thus finally giving the consumer a choice in the matter.
THANK YOU. I went to college, got my bachelors in Industrial Technology (shop class), minor in Computer Science. graduated well, realized my degree was mainly designed to go and teach shop class, and promptly spent the next 7 years working construction. I learned more useful skills in the first year after college than I did in the four years I was there. I've framed houses, poured concrete, installed flagstone and tile, hung sheet-rock, built cabinets, installed windows, trimmed doors, painted miles of walls, and installed metal roofing, just to start. Why? hell, when it comes right down to it, It was more interesting. Lots of my friends from college are now working in fields that have nothing to do with their major field of study. I have a english major friend with a masters that worked for Microsoft, I have another that studied biology that ended up doing chemical cleanup. The point is, College was useful, mainly in that it taught us to knuckle down, get work done, and turn it in on time. If you already know how to do that, just go get a job in something that interests you, and work your way up the old fashioned way.
a surprisingly large amount I suppose, what with high rise buildings having floors that are also ceilings, which have plumbing for the floor above in them.
seeing as I risk hilarious levels of accidental death driving down the street, I'm thinking the trade-off between feces and risk of death is a pretty easy one. Also, awful diseases in human waste.
and you very rarely have to deal with human feces.
I'm not saying that
if you get wrong results (although your data shows it) you get bad mark.
I'm saying that, in an educational setting, the student should be performing an experiment the teacher knows the outcomes of. If done properly, result A is produced. If poor procedure is followed, result B is the expected result. The student would be expected to perform the experiment to the best of their ability, trying to follow proper procedure. Ideally, they perform the test at least three times. Then, they write up their findings. Now, This is the "teachable moment" as we are so fond of calling it, the actual educational part of all this. The teacher reveals the intended results of the experiment. Then the students are tasked with reviewing their work, and discovering where mistakes in their procedure where made that caused result B, instead of result A. Perhaps at this stage, the students are tasked with performing the experiment one more time, this time correcting the error, to see how proper procedure results in result A. In a well designed exercise, Both result A and result B in the experiment produce fascinating results, thus investing students interest in science. (A fair amount of classroom science has results where A is interesting, and B is not, which also can spur a desire to learn how to do the process correctly, allowing for the exciting result.)
The point is, to foster an interest in science, while instilling in the student the knowledge and skills required to perform scientific processes with the appropriate rigor and technique. Once this is very well mastered, students move on to designing and executing their own experiments. As we have seen here, there is a great deal of discussion as to the various places proper scientific process was or was not followed in these students experiment. Couple that with the fact that the phenomena they are attempting to study is still in great debate by professional scientists around the world, and you have students set up in a situation where, despite having performed an experiment, they have not really learned anything about how to do science properly.
I would imagine that it was not "we outlaw experiments" but rather "outlaw experiments that are far above the level that the students can conduct with proper scientific process"
The point being, there are plenty of ways to get kids interested in science, that will allow them to do projects, and get results, that are not nearly as prone to producing aberrant results. MY understanding of how to teach kids science is to have them perform KNOWN experiments that the teacher KNOWS the possible outcomes of, because they have been performed thousands of times by well trained scientists. That way, the teacher can actually teach, because they will be able to tell if proper scientific process has been followed, based on the results, and guide the students into learning the proper scientific process.
Having young kids do actual research on subjects that are not well studied already, or with huge variable pools, does not really teach them anything. its just "I did an experiment and something happened! but because I don't know what was supposed to happen, I cant tell if I followed good scientific procedure." Which is really what they need to be learning.
Let me give a real world example I experienced as a student. In one of my electronics courses in college, we used a workbook designed by students of another school. It included lots of problems such as calculating the final resistance of a circuit. Now, in a professionally designed workbook, generally the problems are arranged so that when you finally produce an answer, the answer is in such a format that you can tell you've proceeded through the math correctly. In OUR workbook, the problems where not designed that way, the result being, you would spend twenty minutes hashing out a bunch of numbers, and the end result looked like it was spit out of a random number generator.
While it is true that real world applications of this sort of math would often produce similar results, In an education environment, producing obfuscated results simply confuses the student, You do the math, look at the answer you got, and think to yourself. "well, I hope that's right." Because the answer your derivations produced is in such a obtuse format.
The point is, in a learning environment, working toward a known answer is key to learning the steps in getting their correctly. Once you know how to take those steps, you can move on to taking those steps blindly towards unknown answers. I will concede that yes, there is eventually a time you may ask students to step out and work towards unknown answers, but I personally feel that such levels of education are better suited to college, possibly even masters degree level, simply because there is such a great quantity of knowledge required to properly proceed through the scientific process.
Think about it, Any high school chemistry teacher worth their pay would never ask a student to mix two chemicals together if the teacher did not know what the reaction would produce. The same standard should be held for biological science at that level.
probably. From what I can tell, the growing medium (of the dead-ish) seeds was paper towel on a plate, and they where given two cups of water a day. If it was blowing warm air out of the router, that two cups would not last long soaked into paper.
finally, someone mod this guy up.
Yes, I have never known a plant growing the the wild to flourish. I also have never known a plant transplanted from the wild to flourish. Oh, wait, thats where all the plants came from in the first place. I must be confused.
So the moral of the story may be "don't put a wifi-router down your pants and leave it there" ?