 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-5-2010 5:06, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 05/09/10 19:55, Darren New wrote:
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:31:15 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>
>>>> But name just *one* scientist
>>>> who's alive today who has done anything so world-alteringly significant
>>>> that almost every man, women and child in the Western world knows their
>>>> name.
>>> Stephen Hawking.
>> Or Carl Sagan, for that matter. Or Dr Hubble.
>
> Carl Sagan and Dr. Hubble are alive?
Technically not. But their legacy lives on.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ah, well, that would explain it then. I don't watch TV. :-)
>>
>> (The irony is that I don't watch TV because there's never enough science
>> to watch...)
>
> You would probably find QI interesting, not always about sciencey stuff,
> but a good programme to watch.
I do sometimes watch that, yes. Although it's not especially easy
figuring out when it's actually on TV. But if somebody else discovers
that it's on, I'll sometimes sit and watch it.
I think meeting Mr Fry might possibly be almost as interesting as
meeting Einstein. ;-)
> But that also would explain why you haven't heard of some fairly well
> known scientists or be aware of what their achievements are, things like
> that tend to be newsworthy, and people often hear the names while
> watching the news or various news commentary.
You could live in a dark hole under a rock somewhere and you'd still
know who Einstein is. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Again, Jane Goodall probably fits that bill. If we counted people
>>> who have lived in our lifetimes, Carl Sagan. Vint Cerf, Sir Tim
>>> Berners-Lee, both of whom I previously mentioned, are also quite well
>>> known.
>>
>> I would refute that... Perhaps I need to do a straw poll when I go
>> down the pub tonight? (Although I can't *pronounce* most of those
>> names, so...)
>
> Ah, this would be the perfect time to mention Dijkstra.
Oh I am *so* not pronouncing that! :-P
I would also suggest that he is famous only to computer experts.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Carl Sagan and Dr. Hubble are alive?
>
> Technically not.
FEYNMAN ZOMBIE!!!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah, this one had to do with evolution and so forth. It made multiple
>> references to The Blind Watchmaker, but I haven't read that.
>
> So then you do know what he's done. ;-)
It's been a while, yeah.
>> (The next question, of course, becomes "who invented this myth?")
>
> GIYF - a hit that I got returned:
>
> http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm
What the heck did you search for?! It's kind of a rather specific
question...
>> I would refute that... Perhaps I need to do a straw poll when I go down
>> the pub tonight? (Although I can't *pronounce* most of those names,
>> so...)
>
> You might refute it, a straw poll might be a start, but a poll of 20
> people isn't a particularly statistically valid poll.
Well it would be more valid than a straw poll of *one* wouldn't it? :-P
Still, I guess this is going to be one of those things where no matter
how much evidence I produce that nobody has heard of these people,
everybody will continue to assert that my statistics are just wrong...
> As for pronunciation, I'm guessing Vint Cerf is the one you are having
> trouble with - I gave a clue, when I said "Cerfing". ;-)
Quite a few of the names look hard to pronounce, but we'll see...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-5-2010 21:37, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> Still more complicated than my own 1984 design. ;)
>
> Anybody else attempted this crazy task?
>
>> If you do it to give you new insights into how to make a CPU than that
>> might qualify you as a scientist. The border is vague, possibly
>> something along the line of how deep the insight is, how many people
>> already know it (if nobody than you are definitely in) and if you are
>> able to pass on that knowledge. If you are paid to do so that also
>> helps, but you aren't.
>
> Depends on your definitions. I would say that anybody who follows the
> scientific method is a scientist, regardless of whether what they
> discover is actually new. But then, if you mean a *professional*
> scientist, or even a *reputable* one, that's another matter... ;-)
You can use the scientific method to prove that if you pour liquid from
one vessel into another the amount stays the same. Few people would call
you a scientist if that is the best you accomplished. So, that is why I
said that it depends.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-5-2010 21:40, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Again, Jane Goodall probably fits that bill. If we counted people
>>>> who have lived in our lifetimes, Carl Sagan. Vint Cerf, Sir Tim
>>>> Berners-Lee, both of whom I previously mentioned, are also quite
>>>> well known.
>>>
>>> I would refute that... Perhaps I need to do a straw poll when I go
>>> down the pub tonight? (Although I can't *pronounce* most of those
>>> names, so...)
>>
>> Ah, this would be the perfect time to mention Dijkstra.
>
> Oh I am *so* not pronouncing that! :-P
>
> I would also suggest that he is famous only to computer experts.
I am afraid so. Though he could (and possibly should) have been a
celebrity for the common man also.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/05/2010 8:35 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Feck! About 35 years ago I built a digital clock out of TTL. It used
>> 30 amps at 5 volts Vcc. The power supply was bigger than a modern PC.
>
> 5 amps?!
>
5 amps per PCB. If IIRC TTL uses 250 ma per chip and there were 20 chips
per PCB and 6 PCBs. Include the losses in the PS and it was just less
than a Kw. It glowed <joke>
> How thick was the damned wire??
>
Standard for the time. ;-)
>> You are mad, you know ;-)
>>
>> Does your wife know about this ?
>>
>> I hope that you have comprehensive fire insurance :-P
>
> Hmm, yes... I think they're calling you a nutjob, Mike.
>
No just a hobbyist with more money and time than sense LOL
>> BTW let us know how you get on. :-)
>
> THIS IS THE REAL WTF! o_O
>
We will see.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2010 20:43:15 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yeah, this one had to do with evolution and so forth. It made multiple
>>> references to The Blind Watchmaker, but I haven't read that.
>>
>> So then you do know what he's done. ;-)
>
> It's been a while, yeah.
>
>>> (The next question, of course, becomes "who invented this myth?")
>>
>> GIYF - a hit that I got returned:
>>
>> http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/gravity.htm
>
> What the heck did you search for?! It's kind of a rather specific
> question...
I searched for "newton apple myth". First hit took me to a page that
linked to this.
>>> I would refute that... Perhaps I need to do a straw poll when I go
>>> down the pub tonight? (Although I can't *pronounce* most of those
>>> names, so...)
>>
>> You might refute it, a straw poll might be a start, but a poll of 20
>> people isn't a particularly statistically valid poll.
>
> Well it would be more valid than a straw poll of *one* wouldn't it? :-P
I don't think statistically it would be. A sample size that's too small
is too small. Still, you might give it a go anyways, if anything it'll
get you talking to people in meatspace. ;-)
> Still, I guess this is going to be one of those things where no matter
> how much evidence I produce that nobody has heard of these people,
> everybody will continue to assert that my statistics are just wrong...
That's because you don't *have* statistics. You have a guess. You say
"nobody", but to prove that, you have to prove that *everybody* hasn't
heard of them. That's pretty easy to disprove.
>> As for pronunciation, I'm guessing Vint Cerf is the one you are having
>> trouble with - I gave a clue, when I said "Cerfing". ;-)
>
> Quite a few of the names look hard to pronounce, but we'll see...
Such as? In the list of names I provided, I fail to see how any except
Cerf's name would be difficult to identify the pronunciation from - since
they sound exactly the way they're spelled (and for that matter, Cerf is
as well, though you have to know the C sound is soft rather than hard).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-5-2010 21:39, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Ah, well, that would explain it then. I don't watch TV. :-)
>>>
>>> (The irony is that I don't watch TV because there's never enough science
>>> to watch...)
>>
>> You would probably find QI interesting, not always about sciencey
>> stuff, but a good programme to watch.
>
> I do sometimes watch that, yes. Although it's not especially easy
> figuring out when it's actually on TV. But if somebody else discovers
> that it's on, I'll sometimes sit and watch it.
Tomorrow 10PM friday BBC2, 8.30 PM BBC1
> I think meeting Mr Fry might possibly be almost as interesting as
> meeting Einstein. ;-)
>
>> But that also would explain why you haven't heard of some fairly well
>> known scientists or be aware of what their achievements are, things
>> like that tend to be newsworthy, and people often hear the names while
>> watching the news or various news commentary.
>
> You could live in a dark hole under a rock somewhere and you'd still
> know who Einstein is. ;-)
My guess it that you already heard of Einstein before you retreated to
your place under that rock.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
