See, I think this point totally escapes most of the population. I think that's why we had this whole kerfuffle about raising taxes on those that made over $250k. Many people believed that meant that if you made $250,000 and got a $1 raise, then you'd suddenly owe a whole bunch more taxes, and thus bring home less than you did before, when you're actually only paying the higher rate on that $1.
Many people prefer one of the hosts over the other, but I think it's all in the delivery, not in the writing. Mike was the head writer almost from the beginning, even when Joel was the host.
I slightly preferred Joel to Mike, but I think the Comedy Central episodes were generally superior to the SciFi ones.
As for the Invention Exchanges, Joel was the one coming up with all ideas, so when he left, nobody else really was able to step up. That's why they got rid of it. The only thing Joel asked them not to use after he left was the word "Gizmonic".
It's not enough for the iron to be molten. The fluid also has to be moving turbulently to generate a magnetic field. This is accomplished either by the core being cooled from above or by the core freezing at the center. If it's not cooling fast enough, you don't get dynamo activity.
Actually, all the long-lived radioactive elements (K-40, U, Th) are lithophile elements. That means they preferentially bond to silicic compounds. So, while U and Th are heavy metals, they aren't found in their elemental state. They form oxides and stuff and hang out in the mantle. There won't be much radioactivity in the core. Futhermore, these elements are among the first things to melt when mantle rocks are heated, so they preferentially go into the crust. So, if anything, we'd expect the moon to have a higher fraction of radioactive isotopes than the earth, since its core is so small.
A good editor is just as important as good referees and reviews.
Ultimately, it's the editor's decision to accept or reject the paper. The reviews are to help him or her make the decision. If the reviews are inadequate or contradictory, the editor can solicit more. My first paper had FIVE reviews, which is the most I've ever heard of. One said it was lousy, the other four liked it.
The editor is also likely to pay more attention to the more thorough review. If I write up a review that's half the length of the original article and provide 50 examples of unjustified assumptions, incorrect methodology, and results that don't support the conclusions, then the editor will weigh my recommendation more heavily than the guy who says, "Looks good. Don't see any problems here."
Yes, that's it! Everyone wants the big payout, so they'll get their kids vaccinated. Ha! That'll show the medical industry! Soon our kids will be immune to all kinds of diseases and live longer and healthier lives! Oh, wait...
Re:Cook's Illustrated, America's Test Kitchen
on
Cooking For Geeks
·
· Score: 1
You'd be shirking your geek obligation if you _weren't_ nitpicky.
I used to have a dim view of final exams. I didn't like the fact that a large fraction (up to 70% depending on the class) of the grade came down to the performance on a single day, while homework assignments, on which I spent much more time, counted for so little. Now that I've taught classes myself, I always give a final exam, because that's the only work I can be absolutely sure that the students actually did themselves. I make it a relatively small fraction of the total grade (say 25%), with a provision that you must pass the final to pass the class (though I've never actually encountered a situation in which this had to be enforced). In this way, I can be sure that the students leave with at least a certain level of comprehension, while the grades are more heavily weighted toward the more work-intensive assignments. Obviously this won't work for everyone. My experience has been teaching various undergrad level astronomy / planetary science classes. And at state universities, not at Harvard. YMMV.
Ohsure. Turn our space junk into radioactive space junk. Just 'cause you blow it up doesn't make it vanish. It's still up there waiting for its chance to strike. And now there are even more pieces to worry about. In fact, I think much of the debris up there is from China, Russia, or the US blowing stuff up in anti-missile tests.
In 10th grade (public school), we had to learn the locations of every nation in the world, their capitals, and the correct spelling. If you misspelled it, it was wrong. The "correct" spelling was that in the official class atlas (can't remember what it was). Alternate spellings, even commonly used ones, were wrong. (The capital of the UAE was Abu Zaby, not Abu Dhabi, though I've never seen the former spelling anywhere else.) This was shortly after the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke up, so that was even more fun. Also, I think Eritrea split off from Ethiopia during the year. I've surely forgotten much since then, but a lot of it stuck with me. I'll mix up Benin and Togo for example, and can't remember the capital of either, but I'm unlikely to mis-locate anything badly.
I'd call something Earth-sized if it's mass fell within a range of one order of magnitude centered on the Earth's. So, something like 0.3 M_earth to 3 M_earth. You could argue for a wider range, but I think that 0.1 M_earth to 10 M_earth is too much. Mars is only a little over a tenth the Mass of the Earth, so that's an order of magnitude smaller. I'd say that puts it smaller than Earth-sized. Venus is something like 0.8 M_earth, so that's close enough. It's not Earth-like for other reasons that have nothing to do with its size.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you frame the discussion in terms of a car analogy?
I feel certain there was no rule forbidding the use of calculators.
+1 Correct.
See, I think this point totally escapes most of the population. I think that's why we had this whole kerfuffle about raising taxes on those that made over $250k. Many people believed that meant that if you made $250,000 and got a $1 raise, then you'd suddenly owe a whole bunch more taxes, and thus bring home less than you did before, when you're actually only paying the higher rate on that $1.
Using local time on Mercury is only so useful to us. A solar day (e.g., sunrise to sunrise) on Mercury lasts for 176 Earth days.
Just let us get our meteorite collection out of there first.
I know, right? It disturbs me that any rodent should have gimballed ears. My son's not bothered by it, however, and loves the show.
I wonder if the copyright extends to the water molecule?
Many people prefer one of the hosts over the other, but I think it's all in the delivery, not in the writing. Mike was the head writer almost from the beginning, even when Joel was the host.
I slightly preferred Joel to Mike, but I think the Comedy Central episodes were generally superior to the SciFi ones.
As for the Invention Exchanges, Joel was the one coming up with all ideas, so when he left, nobody else really was able to step up. That's why they got rid of it. The only thing Joel asked them not to use after he left was the word "Gizmonic".
It's not enough for the iron to be molten. The fluid also has to be moving turbulently to generate a magnetic field. This is accomplished either by the core being cooled from above or by the core freezing at the center. If it's not cooling fast enough, you don't get dynamo activity.
Actually, all the long-lived radioactive elements (K-40, U, Th) are lithophile elements. That means they preferentially bond to silicic compounds. So, while U and Th are heavy metals, they aren't found in their elemental state. They form oxides and stuff and hang out in the mantle. There won't be much radioactivity in the core. Futhermore, these elements are among the first things to melt when mantle rocks are heated, so they preferentially go into the crust. So, if anything, we'd expect the moon to have a higher fraction of radioactive isotopes than the earth, since its core is so small.
Ha ha ha! Oh! That's rich! Alright, go on...
I'd like to give you an answer, but I haven't had enough math to figure it out.
"If you have legs and are flammable, you are never blocking a fire exit."
A good editor is just as important as good referees and reviews.
Ultimately, it's the editor's decision to accept or reject the paper. The reviews are to help him or her make the decision. If the reviews are inadequate or contradictory, the editor can solicit more. My first paper had FIVE reviews, which is the most I've ever heard of. One said it was lousy, the other four liked it.
The editor is also likely to pay more attention to the more thorough review. If I write up a review that's half the length of the original article and provide 50 examples of unjustified assumptions, incorrect methodology, and results that don't support the conclusions, then the editor will weigh my recommendation more heavily than the guy who says, "Looks good. Don't see any problems here."
Yes, that's it! Everyone wants the big payout, so they'll get their kids vaccinated. Ha! That'll show the medical industry! Soon our kids will be immune to all kinds of diseases and live longer and healthier lives! Oh, wait...
You'd be shirking your geek obligation if you _weren't_ nitpicky.
I used to have a dim view of final exams. I didn't like the fact that a large fraction (up to 70% depending on the class) of the grade came down to the performance on a single day, while homework assignments, on which I spent much more time, counted for so little. Now that I've taught classes myself, I always give a final exam, because that's the only work I can be absolutely sure that the students actually did themselves. I make it a relatively small fraction of the total grade (say 25%), with a provision that you must pass the final to pass the class (though I've never actually encountered a situation in which this had to be enforced). In this way, I can be sure that the students leave with at least a certain level of comprehension, while the grades are more heavily weighted toward the more work-intensive assignments. Obviously this won't work for everyone. My experience has been teaching various undergrad level astronomy / planetary science classes. And at state universities, not at Harvard. YMMV.
Ohsure. Turn our space junk into radioactive space junk. Just 'cause you blow it up doesn't make it vanish. It's still up there waiting for its chance to strike. And now there are even more pieces to worry about. In fact, I think much of the debris up there is from China, Russia, or the US blowing stuff up in anti-missile tests.
In 10th grade (public school), we had to learn the locations of every nation in the world, their capitals, and the correct spelling. If you misspelled it, it was wrong. The "correct" spelling was that in the official class atlas (can't remember what it was). Alternate spellings, even commonly used ones, were wrong. (The capital of the UAE was Abu Zaby, not Abu Dhabi, though I've never seen the former spelling anywhere else.) This was shortly after the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke up, so that was even more fun. Also, I think Eritrea split off from Ethiopia during the year. I've surely forgotten much since then, but a lot of it stuck with me. I'll mix up Benin and Togo for example, and can't remember the capital of either, but I'm unlikely to mis-locate anything badly.
You were born the same year that Agricola defeated the Caledonians in the Battle of Mons Graupius?
Is there a #0 UID?
Also Arnold Schwarzenegger and Wolfgang Puck.
Seven words: Invent backwards time machine, then use BeOS.
Could you phrase that in terms of a car analogy?
My experience as both student and teacher is that the students who do the extra credit are the ones who are already doing fine in the class.
I'd call something Earth-sized if it's mass fell within a range of one order of magnitude centered on the Earth's. So, something like 0.3 M_earth to 3 M_earth. You could argue for a wider range, but I think that 0.1 M_earth to 10 M_earth is too much. Mars is only a little over a tenth the Mass of the Earth, so that's an order of magnitude smaller. I'd say that puts it smaller than Earth-sized. Venus is something like 0.8 M_earth, so that's close enough. It's not Earth-like for other reasons that have nothing to do with its size.