>>> 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

So it's on the two nights of the week I have something better to do? :-)

Oh well, I have a fix for that...

>> 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.

Pfff, whatever.

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

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de groupe de 
discussion : 4be9b5aa$1@news.povray.org...
> http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/10/
> the_top_five_most_famous_living_scientists.html

Reading this list I realise that "famous living scientists" are probably 
more "locally" famous than world-famous. Of the 5 scientists cited in the 
blog, only Hawking is something of a star in France. The others are just 
unknown outside scientific circles. The French never hear about Dawkins 
because evolution and atheism are non-issues here. Climate change was not 
controversial until last year so we didn't hear about Hansen (and the 
controversy is mostly reduced to a couple of loudmouths). Watson & Crick 
were always overshadowed by Monod. Goodall got a couple of medals here but 
she isn't well known here either. On the other hand, local scientists or 
French-speaking ones like Trinh Xuan Thuan (US) or Hubert Reeves (Canadian) 
are popular figures, mostly due to media exposure.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 May 2010 22:47:13 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> 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.
>> 
>> http://bbc.co.uk/qi seems to be a pretty definitive source for that
>> information.  But googling "qi schedule" turns up some good hints as
>> well. ;-)
> 
> Yes, obviously it hadn't occurred to me that these days the data is
> probably online.

Indeed, there are quite a few things online that answer the sorts of 
questions you're prone to asking. ;-)

>>> I think meeting Mr Fry might possibly be almost as interesting as
>>> meeting Einstein. ;-)
>> 
>> I'm quite sure he'd be more interesting. :-)
> 
> I'm not so sure... but neither claim is falsifiable, so...

It depends on the person.  Did you know that Stephen Fry writes about 
open source software?

>>> You could live in a dark hole under a rock somewhere and you'd still
>>> know who Einstein is. ;-)
>> 
>> Have you talked to someone who lives in a dark hole under a rock
>> somewhere and asked them? ;-)
> 
> Well... not literally, but I've come close. ;-)

Does such a place exist in the UK?

>> I could argue that you could live in a dark hole under a rock somewhere
>> and still know who Jane Goodall or Richard Dawkins was, too.
> 
> Good luck with that. Dawkins I've heard of, Goodall I haven't.

Well, now you've heard of both of them. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 12 May 2010 00:40:11 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
> discussion : 4be9b5aa$1@news.povray.org...
>> http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/10/
>> the_top_five_most_famous_living_scientists.html
> 
> Reading this list I realise that "famous living scientists" are probably
> more "locally" famous than world-famous. Of the 5 scientists cited in
> the blog, only Hawking is something of a star in France. The others are
> just unknown outside scientific circles. The French never hear about
> Dawkins because evolution and atheism are non-issues here. Climate
> change was not controversial until last year so we didn't hear about
> Hansen (and the controversy is mostly reduced to a couple of
> loudmouths). Watson & Crick were always overshadowed by Monod. Goodall
> got a couple of medals here but she isn't well known here either. On the
> other hand, local scientists or French-speaking ones like Trinh Xuan
> Thuan (US) or Hubert Reeves (Canadian) are popular figures, mostly due
> to media exposure.
> 
> G.

Quite possibly true, though Dawkins is also known for his work in 
genetics, so not just relating to evolution and atheism.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 May 2010 22:42:30 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> And that WORKED??

Absolutely.  Try it.

>>>> 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.
> 
> I don't think stats works like that. You get a number which indicates
> how accurate your estimate is. You them apply some arbitrary threshold
> to decide what is "valid" and "invalid". Choose the right threshold and
> anything can be "valid". My point is that a larger sample size will give
> a better result (assuming reasonable sampling).

Below a certain threshold, a sample holds no statistical validity.  At 
work we use statistical analysis on exam items, and if we have less than 
50 samples or so to work with, we can't get any useful statistics; 1 
result is no more statistically valid than 20 in such a case, because in 
order to do the analysis, a sample size of 50 or more gives us what we 
need for the analysis.

Statisticians I've talked to over the years have confirmed that - and I 
work with a few on a somewhat regular basis in my work (analysing survey 
results and the like, as well as indirectly working with people who are 
professional psychometricians).

>> Still, you might give it a go anyways, if anything it'll get you
>> talking to people in meatspace. ;-)
> 
> In other news, I just spent an hour and a half in a pub.

Also not a bad thing - humans are - by our very nature - generally social 
creatures.

>>> 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.
> 
> Clearly I meant "nobody" in the sense of "a very small fraction of the
> population" rather than "zero people in the entire world". :-P

Ah, hyperbole. ;-)  Still, you don't have statistics, you have a logical 
argument that starts with what I believe is a false premise.

>>> Quite a few of the names look hard to pronounce, but we'll see...
>> 
>> Such as?
> 
> Sagan?

Just like it's spelt:  Say-gan

> Rechecking the list, it doesn't look so bad...

I didn't think it was, hence the question.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 May 2010 22:49:48 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> You've got to admit, though, that mathematics and science are not
>>> spectator sports. It can be very interesting to do yourself, but
>>> watching the greats of the day doing it isn't particularly
>>> interesting.
>> 
>> True ... but seeing what they discover is very interesting :)
> 
> Sure, *after* they've discovered it. ;-)

In a recent interview, Mario Batali was quoted as saying:

"On any level to watch someone else do something they're good at is 
entertaining, whether it's playing violin, cooking or playing baseball."

(This in the context of watching cooking shows).  I think it could apply 
here as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/05/2010 10:35 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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>
>
> I've *seen* solid-state equipment glow. It's not funny. o_O
>

One of our fault finding techniques was to pass circuit boards close to 
the lower lip to detect the heat given off by faulty chips.
> But anyway... 250 mA per chip? I thought it would be more like 0.5 mA
> per chip?
>

My memory may have failed but it is what I remember.

>>> How thick was the damned wire??
>>
>> Standard for the time. ;-)
>
> Are we talking about the days when wires came insulated with fabric
> rather than plastic? :-P
>

No, varnish. :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/05/2010 10:00 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 5/11/2010 2:31 PM, 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.
>
> 30 AMPS? O_o
>
> Umm, you sure that's not 30mA? I mean... for a digital clock 30 amps
> seems like an unreasonably huge power draw! Were you using nixie tubes
> for the display?
>

Definitely not 30 mA and yes nixie tubes, retro even in 1975 :-)
At the time I was working for Burroughs and components were not a 


flops etc. It had an alarm function and you set the time/alarm by 
dialling in the time using rotary switches. A couple of years later I 
worked for Motorola and made a clock from CMOS. That ran on a pp3 battery.

>  From this data sheet:
> http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/48119.pdf
>
> A max if 15mA for a decade counter. 66 of these would draw one amp of
> current. To draw 30 amps you'd need:
>
> ~2000 chips.
>
> Of course, if a classic 7400 series, it's a different story:
>
> http://www.jameco.com/Jameco/Products/ProdDS/50690.pdf
>

File not found. :-(

>
>> You are mad, you know ;-)
>
> Yeah, I know ;)
>
>> Does your wife know about this ?
>
> She does. She's surprisingly tolerant of my antics. ;)
>

I suppose it keeps you off the streets. :-)

>>> The TTL version should be fun, too. I plan to have lots of LEDs to show
>>> what's happening inside the machine.
>>

Good luck and photos are required. :-)

>> I hope that you have comprehensive fire insurance :-P
>
> We do! I think ... I better read my policy closer... I expect the relays
> will use quite a bit of current, which is why I want to be able to keep
> the thing as small as possible in the number of relays.
>
>

I suppose if you use reed relays it will keep the power and noise levels 
down.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/05/2010 10:33 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Think about how a transistor works: You have one circuit that controls
> another. So how hard would it be to rig up a valve where pressure from
> one pipe moves the valve allowing (or blocking) water from flowing
> through a seperate circuit? In principle it ought to be pretty trivial.
> (Of course, making a valve that actually works well in practise probably
> requires far more equipment than I personally have...)


You probably want a three port shuttle valve. Did you know that using 
pneumatics you can make amplifiers, integrators, switches etc.?

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/05/2010 10:38 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Still more complicated than my own 1984 design. ;)
>>>
>>> Anybody else attempted this crazy task?
>>
>> In the mid sixties I built a binary adder using a couple of relays and
>> a uniselector (from the GPO).
>
> Not the GPO!! >_<
>

Yes, the GPO.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message