>>> One of the reasons why I am happy that I did not know of CS when I 
>>> started at uni. They started a year before and somehow that message 
>>> did not reach me in time, otherwise I might have studied CS. While 
>>> studying physics I did a few courses at the CS department and was 
>>> invariably struck by the quality of the lecturers. Did I tell the 
>>> story of the teacher that could not write down the equation for a 
>>> straight line?
>>
>> Heh. Well, I guess if what you happen to be doing doesn't involve that 
>> equation, there's no particular reason to know it. 
> 
> He was giving a lecture where he needed it. Does that count?

...EPIC FAIL.

>> But yeah, generally neither the students nor the lecturers, frankly, 
>> knew what they were on about. [With some notable exceptions.]
> 
> That is why I advise people that are intelligent and interested in 
> computers to study a real science, like physics or chemistry.

Heh. Apparently in some places, "computer science" sees you studying 
Turing machines and the halting problem. I'm real glad I didn't end up 
doing *that*! o_O

> So you can't compute 3x9 in your head *and* you have failed to 
> understand the fundamental concept behind the periodic table. Your 
> future in academia becomes bleaker every post. ;)

Well, I did try to say... :-P

>> (I had also assumed that because they're slightly bigger, there'd be 
>> slightly fewer of them per unit of volume...)
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius (where the calculate radius 
> of oxygen is even less than that of hydrogen)
> 
> And the radius of the atom is largely irrelevant for gasses as you could 
> have known if you paid attention when the gas laws were introduced ;)

Uhuh. You realise that I've never been taught most of this stuff, right?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message