Disqus - Friends of danielrm26

Re: The Nastiest Thing In The World

CarlM — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:50:11 -0000

If you want COLD milk, you just put your glass (must be GLASS) of milk in the freezer for a few minutes.

Re: Hairbrain

CarlM — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:08:04 -0000

Good stuff. I like it. Upon hearing each song once, I actually prefer "Waitin' for the Right Time," though the guitar is a bit more interesting in "Reaching.." It's a close call.

Re: The Monty Hall Math Puzzle

CarlM — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:17:48 -0000

Well, this is indeed a classic example of our faulty intuition when it comes to estimating probabilities. I have always been puzzled however by the fact that people create simulations to get a better "understanding" of what is going on.

While I'm all for simulations in many situations (and in any case it's perhaps a good exercise to create them), a simulation is not needed to analyze this particular puzzle because there are only 9 possible situations. The prize can be behind any of Door 1, Door 2, and Door 3, and we can select any of Door 1, Door 2, and Door 3. There are nine possible combinations.

Though we could analyze all 9, let's just look at three. Suppose that the prize is behind Door 1. If we initially select Door 1 and then switch to the unshown door (whichever it is - in this case the host could reveal EITHER Door 2 or Door 3), we will lose. On the other hand, if we select Door 2 then the host MUST reveal Door 3 (the host will not reveal the prize). So the unshown door is Door 1 (the PRIZE). Switching to that door will cause us to WIN. A similar situation holds if we initially select Door 3. So, in 2 of the 3 cases, switching wins. It's as simple as that.

Simple it may be, but intuitive it is not. That is why this is a standard example in my Elementary Statistics classes.

PS If you want another nifty example of a counterintuitive probability result (related in fact to error correction in computers), let me know. :D

Re: Ricky Gervais Talks About The Bible

CarlM — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:48:22 -0000

That was great. And, sadly, it would get booed off the stage in much of the US.

Re: My Gaming Idea

CarlM — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:09 -0000

And, why are the women going to go hang out in the virtual bars in their new clothes if the guys there think of the bar as a saloon setting for a gunfight?

Re: Cord Tanglingisms

CarlM — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:04:43 -0000

It doesn't take much to tangle the cords. I suspect that it boils down to how you remove them. If you grab the end of a cord (allowing the loops of that cord to tighten as you pull), you will likely create a tangle. Take a nicely looped extension cord (100 feet is a good length for this) and drop it on the ground. It will look fairly nicely looped, but if you pick it up wrong, it'll tangle. There is a secret to "coiling" extension cords (a sort of zig-zag gathering rather than a coiling) that prevents the twisting issues and largely prevents tangles. Similarly, looping the long cord of a vacuum cleaner in a figure 8 pattern as you gather it on the hooks rather than in a loop eliminates the twisting of the cord.

Re: Ten Out Of Ten Vegetarians…

CarlM — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:19:31 -0000

... so far.

Re: Social Engineering: It’s Much Harder For Criminals

CarlM — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:59:38 -0000

Well, if someone has spent time in jail/prison and doesn't mind it so much (perhaps considers the possibility a price that he is willing to pay), then this person would perhaps be able to pull it off as easily as you did. When I was in high school, I learned that I NEVER had to show a hall pass to the hall monitors. While SOME of them knew me and knew that I wasn't going to get into any trouble, many did NOT know me, but saw that I was walking with authority and intent ... looking straight ahead, nodding at them and saying hi as I passed, etc. I was NEVER asked to show a hall pass (though I always had one .. well except for a couple of tests I did just to see).

Re: Finishing My Degree

CarlM — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:05:32 -0000

I'm not an employer either, but I too have an uneasy feeling about UoP. It may be entirely unjustified, but at this point in history, I believe that a degree from a "real" school (apologies to UoP) seems to me to have more value.

I'm not sure how necessary it is for you. The toughest job to get without a degree is the FIRST one. Once you build a reputation, perhaps the reputation speaks more loudly than a degree would. On the other hand, the lack of a degree is an excuse for a potential employer to sort your application into the "no" pile. You don't need to give them any excuse for that.

To sum up:

• I believe that a degree (even an online one!) from a physical campus is more valuable (at this time) than a degree from an entirely online school.

• A reputation in a field CAN be a large plus to a potential employer.

• A degree will open additional doors (or will ensure that they are not automatically closed to you).

Furthermore, if you ever decided to switch fields, a degree will still be a valuable credential. Experience may be less so.

Re: GCIA Completed

CarlM — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:45:21 -0000

Clearly they wanted you to use l and O (lower case L and capital o). That works in pretty much any font. :) Seriously though ... when I was in high school there wasno "1" on a typewriter. You simply used the lowercase L. REALLY.

Re: Finishing My Degree

CarlM — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:48:16 -0000

To be fair, UoP _is_ an accredited school, but I still have this gut feeling that it just isn't the same (at this point in history).

Re: Physics: Stranger Than Fiction

CarlM — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:52:55 -0000

Nice video.

There was a slight problem with the animation of the interfering waves .. well, not with the animation but with the interference pattern on the screen (the bright lines didn't all line up with the places that the waves were adding to each other). But ... that's just being picky.

It was a nice demonstration of real experients .. and done in such a way that people can understand what happens (not WHY, but what).

For those who are curious about how observing could possibly change the behavior of the electron (how could the electron KNOW that it is being observed?) ... it isn't that mysterious. An observation of an object REQUIRES interaction with an object (even if that interaction is as simple as bouncing a photon off of it to SEE it .. there are other means of observing, but ALL require interaction of some sort).

Re: Physics: Stranger Than Fiction

CarlM — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:54:21 -0000

:) nice .. that "watched pot" comment got a chuckle from me.

OK, let me try to explain. And, let me be clear, what I intend to explain is ONLY that observation can be expected to change the outcome of an experiment. Not that observation changes it in the precise way that it does.

First of all, the act of observing the electrons pass through one slit or the other requires some specialized observation equipment. We want to know for each individual electron whether it is passing through the left slit or the right slit. It is not a simple matter of simply LOOKING vs NOT LOOKING. To "see" the electron, we need to direct a light source at it OR use some sort of detector that can detect moving charges (which create a magnetic field which can be detected). Here's the thing. For light to be able to SEE something with light, the wavelength has to be roughly the size of the object being seen (or smaller). The smaller the wavelength of light, the more energetic it is. Electrons are tiny and to SEE them with light, we need to direct photons of fairly high energy at them. When the light reflects back to the observer (us), it imparts energy to the electron (the whole action-reaction thing). This changes the momentum (direction and speed) of the electron. You can see that this could change what happens. It doesn't matter if we actually LOOK at the reflected light. That is, we don't actually have to OBSERVE the light .. it is enough that we directed the energy beam at the electron. This is the thing that causes the disruption. We could instead simply try to detect the magnetic field generated by the electron. But putting a detector near a slit that the magnetic field pushes on (a simplification, but you get the idea) will result in (you guessed it) an equal and opposite push. This also changes the momentum of the electron. The double slit experiment works only when the electrons are free from interference of these sorts.

Here's an interesting page if you really want to read more about this stuff:

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-...

---

OK, I'm not sure I've convinced anyone of anything, but (on an ALMOST entirely different subject -- inspired only by my mention of the magnetic field detector above) let me mention a couple of interesting things you can do with a loop of wire and a battery.

(1) Create an electromagnet.
(2) Create a metal detector. (The hand held things that people use to look for treasure on the beach are essentially loops of wire. So are the detectors at traffic lights.)
(3) Create a transformer (requires a couple of loops of wire).

OK, I'm getting off subject ... I'll get back to my lecture writing. :)

Re: Physics: Stranger Than Fiction

CarlM — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:54:10 -0000

Indeed, the uncertainty principle is key to much of this stuff. Your explanation is good .. just keep in mind that when objects are large, our observations don't disturb them in any significant way. But when objects are tiny, the observations can disturb them in significant ways.

Re: Jesus Camp

CarlM — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:27:17 -0000

OMG

Talk about your false dichotimies:

It's either (militant) Christian Bible Camp or a camp where kids are handed hand grenades.

I'd like to cast my vote for "none of the above."

Re: A Water-Powered World

CarlM — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:08:44 -0000

Call me a skeptic.

• If his car could run entirely on water, WHY make it a gasoline/water hybrid?

• The torch video was VERY misleading. You heard him say that he creates the gas using electrolysis (using electricity). The FUEL (energy source) is the electricity. The water is converted to HHO gas (WHAT THE HECK IS THAT? Steam?). It just isn't clear what he's doing.

• My guess is that he's deluded. He probably believes what he claims, but I'm extremely skeptical.

Re: A Water-Powered World

CarlM — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:21:39 -0000

I'm sticking with my original belief that the guy is deluded. You're right that local newscasts generally do not do even a slightly good job with science. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that there is always real science going on behind the scenes.

Aquygen™ Gas does not follow the fundamental PVT law for gases.

That's from the science page of the guy's website. Well, from
http://scienceworld.wolfram...
We see that the ideal gas law is something that many common gases approximate at standard temperature and pressure. The way this is phrased, it appears that this is not an absolutle law after all. Hmmm .... maybe when a vapor is at a temperature below its boiling point the law doesn't hold. This would explain this little mystery.

Still, to be fair to this guy, he did get a paper published
http://hytechapps.com/aquyg...

Nonetheless, I remain STRONGLY skeptical and will be extremely surprised if we ever see an engine that produces more energy from water than the electricity needed to produce the Aquygen Gas (whatever that is).

Re: If You’re An Atheist, Don’t Hide It

CarlM — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:48:09 -0000

It _is_ scary. Indeed, I believe that someone who is openly atheist would have a hard time being elected to public office in many parts (most parts?) of the US. People claim to look at the issues, but still vote mostly along party lines or let some single issue trump all others. I think that for many in this country, religion (or lack thereof) is one such issue.

Re: My Response To A “Bush Is Great” Email

CarlM — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:12:11 -0000

I try not to think about the fact that after the attacks of 9/11, the entire world sympathized with us and was behind us in our attacks on the Taliban & al-Quaida. But when Bush made his axis of evil remarks and then attacked Iraq (arguably the LEAST problematic of the three countries in his axis of evil), he turned the world against us. This was inexcusable. His administration keeps asking the question: Is the world better off with Saddam Hussein out of power? And they seem to be honestly puzzled that everyone doesn't rush to answer "YES!!!!" The fact is that this is not a fair question. It is not a meaningful question. It has no context. The world (and in particular the US) is NOT safer now than it was before 9/11. I don't believe that one gets safer by creating enemies and alienating friends.

Re: Frog-Slaying with Danzig

CarlM — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:18:47 -0000

Clearly this was God's way of punishing you for listening to Danzig.

Re: My Response To A “Bush Is Great” Email

CarlM — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:59:05 -0000

It is not true that the _world_ has hated us for a long time. The events you list (L.W.) are not representative of a wide range of countries. And, though some of our allies have disliked the attitude of "the world revolves around the United States of America" that has been espoused by many of our leaders (Democrats and Republicans alike), it has always been my impression that they did not really dislike the US and in fact respected our freedoms, etc. But, Bush has managed to change all that. As I said in my original post, the world was behind us after 9/11. Had Bush appropriately used their support to deal with the terrorists and not used 9/11 as an excuse to pursue other agendas, the respect of the world might still be with us. Had Bush understood that to diminish our freedoms is to let the terrorists win, the support of the US citizens might still be with him. Had Bush come down HARD on those in the military who did respect the Geneva Conventions and basic human rights, then the world might not wonder what has happened to our once proud country. Now even our strongest allies (who will stand with us a while longer .. some because they think that they have something to gain by being our friends, and others because they remember who we were) have begun to lose some of their respect for us. I'm not sure that they hate us (the United States), but some of them sure seem to hate our president. And, I cannot see how to defend him. I am saddened by some of the things that some of my countrymen have done under the cloak of "fighting terrorists," and I hope that the world can forgive us.

Re: My Response To A “Bush Is Great” Email

CarlM — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:01:11 -0000

PS I do not blame Bush for the attacks of 9/11. I (mostly) agree that he just happened to be president when that attack took place. I blame him for what he has done (and not done) since.

Re: The Truth About Horsepower, Torque, and Acceleration

CarlM — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:07:03 -0000

"What matters more for acceleration -- horsepower or torque?"

"... anyone telling you that either horsepower or torque is more important than the other is significantly off-base."

"So yeah, the answer to the question is horsepower."

Um ...

Re: My Next Car Has Been Chosen

CarlM — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:23:49 -0000

As they say ... ymmv.

If you push those turbos, I'm thinking that the mpg might be slightly less. :)

I'm still a Point A to Point B kind of guy. If a vehicle does that, it's doing its job.

Re: Adding Ads

CarlM — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:41:49 -0000

Well, _I_ don't think that. Nor do I think "This site must be pretty weak" if there are no ads. But, your ads are not flashy or annoying, so I've no problem with them.