 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I liked this one better:
http://sivers.org/weidman
From what I've read about men and women of true genius, this sounds
pretty much right. But look at the thread comments... apparently the
general populas actually thinks that gifted scientists and
mathematicians actually wander around, zombie-style, burbling about
equations and unable to comprehend social interaction.
I blame the media...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I liked this one better:
>
> http://sivers.org/weidman
great anecdote. Perhaps all you need to appreciate Mozart is to have Einstein
next to you? ;)
> From what I've read about men and women of true genius, this sounds
> pretty much right. But look at the thread comments... apparently the
> general populas actually thinks that gifted scientists and
> mathematicians actually wander around, zombie-style, burbling about
> equations and unable to comprehend social interaction.
>
> I blame the media...
indeed. Though Einstein himself contributed much to this state of affairs with
his famous tongue shot. The prototypical mad scientist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> great anecdote. Perhaps all you need to appreciate Mozart is to have Einstein
> next to you? ;)
Heh. Perhaps all you need to realise what it is to be *alive* is to
stand next to a great man such as him.
Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries ago, eh?
>> I blame the media...
>
> indeed. Though Einstein himself contributed much to this state of affairs with
> his famous tongue shot. The prototypical mad scientist.
Ah, but no - that just shows that the dude had a sense of humour.
(Something which apparently nobody today expects scientists to have...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-5-2010 23:15, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> great anecdote. Perhaps all you need to appreciate Mozart is to have
>> Einstein
>> next to you? ;)
>
> Heh. Perhaps all you need to realise what it is to be *alive* is to
> stand next to a great man such as him.
>
> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries ago, eh?
>
>>> I blame the media...
>>
>> indeed. Though Einstein himself contributed much to this state of
>> affairs with
>> his famous tongue shot. The prototypical mad scientist.
>
> Ah, but no - that just shows that the dude had a sense of humour.
> (Something which apparently nobody today expects scientists to have...)
>
Oh come on, I am I scientist too...
Ok, I see what you mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.05.2010 22:50, schrieb nemesis:
> indeed. Though Einstein himself contributed much to this state of affairs with
> his famous tongue shot. The prototypical mad scientist.
Strangely enough, Einstein himself had a kind of "pop star" status at
his time. Science was considered sort of "sexy" back then.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries ago, eh?
Yeah, because we had quantum physics down pat centuries ago.
> Ah, but no - that just shows that the dude had a sense of humour.
> (Something which apparently nobody today expects scientists to have...)
You should read some of the Feynman biographies.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 8-5-2010 23:15, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> great anecdote. Perhaps all you need to appreciate Mozart is to have
> >> Einstein
> >> next to you? ;)
> >
> > Heh. Perhaps all you need to realise what it is to be *alive* is to
> > stand next to a great man such as him.
> >
> > Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries ago, eh?
> >
> >>> I blame the media...
> >>
> >> indeed. Though Einstein himself contributed much to this state of
> >> affairs with
> >> his famous tongue shot. The prototypical mad scientist.
> >
> > Ah, but no - that just shows that the dude had a sense of humour.
> > (Something which apparently nobody today expects scientists to have...)
> >
> Oh come on, I am I scientist too...
that I can believe. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Strangely enough, Einstein himself had a kind of "pop star" status at
> his time. Science was considered sort of "sexy" back then.
I'm told back in the Victorian era, engineers were regarded as gods.
Then again, back in the Victorian era we went from a world where
everything is done by hand to a work of fantastical machines that are
still celebrated in steampunk to this day. I guess that's why!
Today for some reason it's fashionable to be stupid.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries ago,
>> eh?
>
> Yeah, because we had quantum physics down pat centuries ago.
Sure, science is still happening today. 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.
Yeah, exactly.
> You should read some of the Feynman biographies.
My sister bought me a book entitled "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman!"
I never did finish reading it, but it falls into the category of Quite
Interesting. (Now if I could just figure out where the hell it's gone...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/05/2010 10:31 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries
>>> ago, eh?
>>
>> Yeah, because we had quantum physics down pat centuries ago.
>
> Sure, science is still happening today. 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.
>
> Yeah, exactly.
>
How about Benoit Mandelbrot or Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2010 11:27, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> Strangely enough, Einstein himself had a kind of "pop star" status at
>> his time. Science was considered sort of "sexy" back then.
>
> I'm told back in the Victorian era, engineers were regarded as gods.
>
> Then again, back in the Victorian era we went from a world where
> everything is done by hand to a work of fantastical machines that are
> still celebrated in steampunk to this day. I guess that's why!
>
> Today for some reason it's fashionable to be stupid.
It is changing slowly over time. There have been periods where thinking
for yourself was considered bad by the ruling class of the time. OTOH
there were times when everybody of some standing was doing natural
science (the period of Darwin and before) even math (Japan, forgot which
period, where people nailed plagues to their houses commemoration the
formulas they discovered themselves).
I guess you will have to wait a couple of years (50-500) to a period
when the elite has nothing better to do than think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries
>>>> ago, eh?
>>>
>>> Yeah, because we had quantum physics down pat centuries ago.
>>
>> Sure, science is still happening today. 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.
>>
>> Yeah, exactly.
>
> How about Benoit Mandelbrot or Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins?
Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
Everybody recognises fractals when they see them; far fewer recognise
the name of Mandelbrot (or Julia or Pickover or Lorenz or Barnsley or...)
Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
ever done?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2010 15:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries
>>>>> ago, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, because we had quantum physics down pat centuries ago.
>>>
>>> Sure, science is still happening today. 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.
>>>
>>> Yeah, exactly.
>>
>> How about Benoit Mandelbrot or Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins?
>
> Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
>
> Everybody recognises fractals when they see them; far fewer recognise
> the name of Mandelbrot (or Julia or Pickover or Lorenz or Barnsley or...)
>
> Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
> ever done?
He tried a.o. to compute how much change that a gene is identical to
yours is needed to make it worthwhile for you to sacrifice your life for
the other person. And other computations to find genes with an
amplification factor greater than one. Read his "selfish gene", which
actually does not claim that genes act selfishly.
One of the problems nowadays is that there are much more and cheaper
celebrities than scientist. Most tv gameshows are full of them, mostly
ones that nobody has ever heard of. That decreases the chance of
somebody that actually knows something or can do something to come in
contact with a broader audience.
There are many scientists that have done things that influence
everybody's live still alive. Most of them indeed not very well known.
How many people know e.g. Tim Berners-Lee or any of the nobel prize
winners of the last 20 years? OTH there are people that are so well
known that you would probably not count them as scientists, Like David
Attenborough. As an intermediate conclusion: being well known costs a
lot of time, so it is one or the other.
Jane Goodall might be a compromise, did a lot of real scientific work
before, now uses her name to accomplish other things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 4be680e1@news.povray.org...
> Sure, science is still happening today. 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.
A few ideas:
- A lot of the "science hero" worshipping in the mid-XIXth to mid-XXth
century was somehow propagandistic. These were times where many countries
were involved in nation-building (where non-controversial heroes were needed
to provide national role models) or in pissing contests with other countries
("MY science is better than YOUR science"). This does not diminish the
merits of those scientists (Lyssenko notwithstanding) but part of the
worship was artificially constructed. Note that the scientific hero has its
dark side, the mad scientist, a cliché that is still pestering actual
scientists today.
- Contemporary science is made by hundreds of thousands of small and large
teams all over the world, each one working for long period of times on
increasingly specialised fields. Singling out individuals is still possible
(Nobel Prize) but much of the modern science is anonymous and just too
abstract to make sense to the general public unless it's pretty (fractals,
astronomy) or made controversial by non-scientific pressure (genetics,
climate science).
- World-altering breakthroughs are harder to find today and progress seems
more incremental.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But name just *one* scientist who's alive today
To be fair, there's a pretty big gap between "centuries ago" and "alive today."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:03:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
> ever done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Evolutionary_biology for a
start.
*A* book? No, several books at least. Heard the word "meme"? He coined
it to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the
spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. (from the same wikipedia
article). That's a pretty significant contribution as well (and one I
didn't know about, actually).
Read the bio and then let's talk about what he's ever done. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
>> ever done?
>
> Read the bio and then let's talk about what he's ever done. ;-)
Ask some random person "what did Einstein do?" and they'll be like
"uh... I don't know. He was a genius, right?"
Ask some random person "who is Einstein?" and they'll instantly know he
was a world-famous scientist.
Ask somebody who Richard Dawkins is and see how many of them actually
have any clue. (I've only heard of him because I read the book he wrote.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A few ideas:
>
> - A lot of the "science hero" worshipping in the mid-XIXth to mid-XXth
> century was somehow propagandistic.
Seems reasonable.
> - Much of the modern science is anonymous
> and just too abstract to make sense to the general public unless it's
> pretty (fractals, astronomy) or made controversial by non-scientific
> pressure (genetics, climate science).
That's probably a large part of the problem, yes.
Still, how many people have even the vaguest idea what Relativity is
about? None the less everybody knows who Einstein was, even if they have
no idea why he was so important.
> - World-altering breakthroughs are harder to find today and progress
> seems more incremental.
This is probably the big one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Or Carl Sagan, for that matter.
Who?
> Or Dr Hubble.
I've heard of the Hubble Telescope, but I wasn't aware it's actually
named after somebody...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4be7bfd2$1@news.povray.org...
>> Or Carl Sagan, for that matter.
>
> Who?
>
>> Or Dr Hubble.
>
> I've heard of the Hubble Telescope, but I wasn't aware it's actually named
> after somebody...
Oh he just discovered other galaxies existence, red shift and universe
expansion!
It is not as if he deserved fame ;-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Or Dr Hubble.
>> I've heard of the Hubble Telescope, but I wasn't aware it's actually named
>> after somebody...
>
> Oh he just discovered other galaxies existence, red shift and universe
> expansion!
> It is not as if he deserved fame ;-)
I'm not debating whether he deserved fame, but whether he *got* it. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news:
4be7fadf$1@news.povray.org...
>>>> Or Dr Hubble.
>>> I've heard of the Hubble Telescope, but I wasn't aware it's actually
>>> named after somebody...
>>
>> Oh he just discovered other galaxies existence, red shift and universe
>> expansion!
>> It is not as if he deserved fame ;-)
>
> I'm not debating whether he deserved fame, but whether he *got* it. ;-)
Good point but at least YOU deserve blame ;-)
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Or Carl Sagan, for that matter.
>
> Who?
Judging who is famous or not by whether *you* have heard of him is kind of
silly, don't you think?
>> Or Dr Hubble.
>
> I've heard of the Hubble Telescope,
Well, there ya go then.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Judging who is famous or not by whether *you* have heard of him is kind
> of silly, don't you think?
Well how else am I going to judge it? By whether 100 random strangers on
the street have heard of him? Newsflash: I don't have access to that data.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 May 2010 09:09:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this
>>> guy ever done?
>>
>> Read the bio and then let's talk about what he's ever done. ;-)
>
> Ask some random person "what did Einstein do?" and they'll be like
> "uh... I don't know. He was a genius, right?"
>
> Ask some random person "who is Einstein?" and they'll instantly know he
> was a world-famous scientist.
>
> Ask somebody who Richard Dawkins is and see how many of them actually
> have any clue. (I've only heard of him because I read the book he
> wrote.)
Well, again, he's written several, so which did you read?
But in my circles, Richard Dawkins is quite well know. So's Jane
Goodall, for that matter.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:55:29 -0700, 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.
Yes, I was thinking of Carl Sagan last night as an answer to that
question.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson also came to mind, but he may be better known inside
the US rather than outside it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:35:02 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:55:29 -0700, 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.
>
> Yes, I was thinking of Carl Sagan last night as an answer to that
> question.
>
> Neil DeGrasse Tyson also came to mind, but he may be better known inside
> the US rather than outside it.
>
> Jim
Another that came to mind was Vint Cerf. Another would be Sir Tim
Berners-Lee. I think a fair number of people could guess where both of
them made their contributions, all it would take is a little "cerfing" of
the internet to find out.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ask some random person "who is Einstein?" and they'll instantly know he
>> was a world-famous scientist.
>>
>> Ask somebody who Richard Dawkins is and see how many of them actually
>> have any clue. (I've only heard of him because I read the book he
>> wrote.)
>
> Well, again, he's written several, so which did you read?
Uh... I can't actually remember the title now. Let me go check...
...OK, the copy on his website has different cover art [sigh], but I
believe it was Climbing Mount Improbable.
> But in my circles, Richard Dawkins is quite well know. So's Jane
> Goodall, for that matter.
My point being that you don't need to be in any particular "circles" to
know who Einstein or Newton is. Even very small children have heard the
tale of how Newton was hit on the head by an apple. (I wonder if that
myth actually happened?)
Everybody has heard of Archimedies, even if they're not sure exactly
what he did.
Unfortunately, there's nobody alive today of quite the same stature -
except perhaps Steven Hawking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2010 4:15 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> indeed. Though Einstein himself contributed much to this state of
>> affairs with
>> his famous tongue shot. The prototypical mad scientist.
>
> Ah, but no - that just shows that the dude had a sense of humour.
> (Something which apparently nobody today expects scientists to have...)
>
I thought he did it because he was sick of all of the media attention
.... Of course, it also created one of the most iconic shots of the
century.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I thought he did it because he was sick of all of the media attention
> .... Of course, it also created one of the most iconic shots of the
> century.
Now that's irony! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2010 5:40 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Ah, but no - that just shows that the dude had a sense of humour.
>> (Something which apparently nobody today expects scientists to have...)
>>
> Oh come on, I am I scientist too...
> Ok, I see what you mean.
What does make one a scientist? Someone once told me with all of the
things I do I should be a scientist.
... My thought was, "By experimenting with the world around me, and
observing the effects ... doesn't that by definition make me one?"
Then again, I'm not a professor, I have no college degree, and my career
choice is "Code Monkey" so, does that exclude me from being a scientist?
Do I need a career as a researcher to consider myself a scientist?
You see. That simple statement she made threw me into an existential
crisis ...
I'm socially awkward... but, that only makes me a nerd, not a scientist :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What does make one a scientist? Someone once told me with all of the
> things I do I should be a scientist.
>
> ... My thought was, "By experimenting with the world around me, and
> observing the effects ... doesn't that by definition make me one?"
I would suggest so, yes.
> Then again, I'm not a professor, I have no college degree, and my career
> choice is "Code Monkey" so, does that exclude me from being a scientist?
> Do I need a career as a researcher to consider myself a scientist?
You know that there are people who do scientific experiments *about*
computer programs, right? ;-)
> I'm socially awkward... but, that only makes me a nerd, not a scientist :)
LAMO! Someone give this man a WIN badge! :-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2010 8:03 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
>
From what I know of him, (which is to say not much... except he's a
renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist) he also has a pretty
wicked sense of humor. I once saw a picture of him with Jim Carey, posed
so it looked like he was running over his foot with his wheelchair.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2010 3:12 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Or Carl Sagan, for that matter.
>
> Who?
>
Inventor of the communications satellite, physicist, cosmologist ... and
sci-fi writer....
>> Or Dr Hubble.
>
> I've heard of the Hubble Telescope, but I wasn't aware it's actually
> named after somebody...
Of course it was ;P
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2010 5:48 PM, clipka wrote:
> Strangely enough, Einstein himself had a kind of "pop star" status at
> his time. Science was considered sort of "sexy" back then.
Why can't we get back to putting people who actually contribute to the
better understanding of the world around us back on the pedestal instead
of placing vacuous celebrities and sports stars on a pedestal?
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
>
> From what I know of him, (which is to say not much... except he's a
> renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist) he also has a pretty
> wicked sense of humor. I once saw a picture of him with Jim Carey, posed
> so it looked like he was running over his foot with his wheelchair.
And then there was that advert [I forget what for]. It featured him
floating in space talking about something or other. It ended with
"Peeeople offten arsk me hwat the seekret of the umniverse is. Wel, it's..."
and then a stray asteroid hits his wheelchair, sending it spinning.
"...oww bummmmer!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Strangely enough, Einstein himself had a kind of "pop star" status at
>> his time. Science was considered sort of "sexy" back then.
>
> Why can't we get back to putting people who actually contribute to the
> better understanding of the world around us back on the pedestal instead
> of placing vacuous celebrities and sports stars on a pedestal?
There's more of the latter?
They're cheaper to have around?
It's easier for the general public to comprehend a man kicking a hollow
lump of cow hide than the concept that time and space are subjective?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2010 7:41 AM, Invisible wrote:
>
> You know that there are people who do scientific experiments *about*
> computer programs, right? ;-)
>
Yeah :)
Actually, in the vein of computer science: For the fun of it I'm
designing CPU from scratch. I plan to build it with TTL gates after I
have the design complete and have vetted it through simulation. I have
the ALU designed. (Fairly simple, it can add, perform bitwise logic and
shift, as well as calculate the twos complement. Other operations will
take multiple cycles) I also have most of the control logic put
together, but I need to make some changes to ensure an ALU instruction
can occur within 2 cycles (One to latch the ALU result, one to store the
result in the accumulator)
Eventually, I want to take a simplified version of that design and
create a CPU entirely out of relays. Obviously, I'd need keep the design
as simple as possible, but still functional to keep the relay count
down. Something about a bit stack of clacking relays with blinking
lights really appeals to me. That machine will likely still have IC
memory, though, but the registers will be relay latches.
One consideration for the relay version is that the machine should be
able to halt and only resume processing on an interrupt. So, ideally,
you'd give it inputs, issue a command, and send it clacking away to get
a result.
It's fun stuff, and occupies a good deal of time. Also a great way to
learn HOW a computer like the one you're sitting at actually works. e.g.
how each instruction of machine code does what it does, etc...
The TTL version should be fun, too. I plan to have lots of LEDs to show
what's happening inside the machine.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/11/2010 7:51 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Strangely enough, Einstein himself had a kind of "pop star" status at
>>> his time. Science was considered sort of "sexy" back then.
>>
>> Why can't we get back to putting people who actually contribute to the
>> better understanding of the world around us back on the pedestal
>> instead of placing vacuous celebrities and sports stars on a pedestal?
>
> There's more of the latter?
Definitely true....
> They're cheaper to have around?
Have you seen their salaries?
> It's easier for the general public to comprehend a man kicking a hollow
> lump of cow hide than the concept that time and space are subjective?
But, in my mind, infinitely more interesting than watching someone kick
a hollow lump of cow hide around.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> They're cheaper to have around?
>
> Have you seen their salaries?
Do you know what the likes of Einstein command? ;-)
>> It's easier for the general public to comprehend a man kicking a hollow
>> lump of cow hide than the concept that time and space are subjective?
>
> But, in my mind, infinitely more interesting than watching someone kick
> a hollow lump of cow hide around.
FWIW, I agree...
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You know that there are people who do scientific experiments *about*
>> computer programs, right? ;-)
>
> Yeah :)
OK, good. :-)
> Actually, in the vein of computer science: For the fun of it I'm
> designing CPU from scratch. I plan to build it with TTL gates after I
> have the design complete and have vetted it through simulation.
...this sounds so much like my life approximately 15 years ago...
> Eventually, I want to take a simplified version of that design and
> create a CPU entirely out of relays.
> Something about a bit stack of clacking relays with blinking
> lights really appeals to me.
Hmm, interesting.
Perhaps you would have enjoyed a visit to Stoney Stratford telephone
exchange. It's a sprawling building, filled with rack after rack after
rack of cases, each case filled with dozens of relays. And they're not
in cases or anything, just "naked", so you can see (and if you desire,
move) the working components. There is also several tonnes of wire
overhead feeding this equipment. And all of it is as silent as death.
It's like a museum or something.
(Just down the corridor there's a small broom cupboard. This is the
*real* telephone exchange, alive and operational. It's really just a few
lasers and some circuit boards. But mess with it and you'll have just
taken 15,000 customers offline!)
Myself, I visualised a computer made of pressurised water fed through a
series of simple mechanical valves. Sadly, I fear that for reliable
operation, you would need inside water pressure. And if you wanted a
clock speed of more than about 0.02 Hz, you would have to use steel
piping and pyrotechnics to sustain the necessary pressure! It would be a
very "kinetic" experience though.
> It's fun stuff, and occupies a good deal of time. Also a great way to
> learn HOW a computer like the one you're sitting at actually works. e.g.
> how each instruction of machine code does what it does, etc...
Yeah. I've written about it before now. (As I say, a computer is a layer
cake though. Try to explain it and laymen quickly get lost in the layers
of abstraction upon abstraction needed to perform even the most trivial
task.)
Also... when I tried to build my own machine out of 7400s, I quickly
discovered that the gates don't appear to function as their truth table
indicates that they should. (!) I also looked into playing with FPGAs,
but the cost is prohibitive. (And, knowing me, I'd just make something
that doesn't even work, and then spend months trying to find out why!)
Plus, Xilinix (?) have a free simulation tool available, and it's just
painful to use. I dred to think what actually synthesizing with it would
be like...
> The TTL version should be fun, too. I plan to have lots of LEDs to show
> what's happening inside the machine.
In solomn truth, it's probably simpler and easier to code a small peice
of JavaScript that controls a little Flash animation on a computer
screen. But there's something impressive about being able to pick up a
physical object in your hands and see that there really are no tricks...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:11:59 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Ask some random person "who is Einstein?" and they'll instantly know
>>> he was a world-famous scientist.
>>>
>>> Ask somebody who Richard Dawkins is and see how many of them actually
>>> have any clue. (I've only heard of him because I read the book he
>>> wrote.)
>>
>> Well, again, he's written several, so which did you read?
>
> Uh... I can't actually remember the title now. Let me go check...
>
> ...OK, the copy on his website has different cover art [sigh], but I
> believe it was Climbing Mount Improbable.
OK, so that's one book. The more important works that he wrote had to do
with genetics.
>> But in my circles, Richard Dawkins is quite well know. So's Jane
>> Goodall, for that matter.
>
> My point being that you don't need to be in any particular "circles" to
> know who Einstein or Newton is.
Well, you assume everyone has heard of them. There's probably some guy
living in a little village in a remote part of Africa who's never heard
of either of them.
> Even very small children have heard the
> tale of how Newton was hit on the head by an apple. (I wonder if that
> myth actually happened?)
It didn't; there was a bit on an episode of QI this series that talked
about the myth.
> Everybody has heard of Archimedies, even if they're not sure exactly
> what he did.
>
> Unfortunately, there's nobody alive today of quite the same stature -
> except perhaps Steven Hawking.
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 5/10/2010 3:12 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Or Carl Sagan, for that matter.
>>
>> Who?
>>
>
> Inventor of the communications satellite, physicist, cosmologist ... and
> sci-fi writer....
Also the narrator of Cosmos. I don't know anyone who didn't watch Cosmos.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Uh... I can't actually remember the title now. Let me go check...
>>
>> ...OK, the copy on his website has different cover art [sigh], but I
>> believe it was Climbing Mount Improbable.
>
> OK, so that's one book. The more important works that he wrote had to do
> with genetics.
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.
>>> But in my circles, Richard Dawkins is quite well know. So's Jane
>>> Goodall, for that matter.
>> My point being that you don't need to be in any particular "circles" to
>> know who Einstein or Newton is.
>
> Well, you assume everyone has heard of them. There's probably some guy
> living in a little village in a remote part of Africa who's never heard
> of either of them.
I meant in general Western culture. People have written books and made
films about Einstein, Newton and the like. They're that all known that
"almost everybody" knows of them. I doubt too many people know who, say,
William Harvey.
>> Even very small children have heard the
>> tale of how Newton was hit on the head by an apple. (I wonder if that
>> myth actually happened?)
>
> It didn't; there was a bit on an episode of QI this series that talked
> about the myth.
What a surprise...
(The next question, of course, becomes "who invented this myth?")
>> Everybody has heard of Archimedies, even if they're not sure exactly
>> what he did.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's nobody alive today of quite the same stature -
>> except perhaps Steven Hawking.
>
> 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...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Also the narrator of Cosmos. I don't know anyone who didn't watch Cosmos.
Apparently you don't know me then.
What's Cosmos then?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11-5-2010 14:36, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 5/8/2010 5:40 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>>> Ah, but no - that just shows that the dude had a sense of humour.
>>> (Something which apparently nobody today expects scientists to have...)
>>>
>> Oh come on, I am I scientist too...
>> Ok, I see what you mean.
>
> What does make one a scientist?
That is probably round three or four for Darren. ;)
> Someone once told me with all of the
> things I do I should be a scientist.
>
> ... My thought was, "By experimenting with the world around me, and
> observing the effects ... doesn't that by definition make me one?"
>
> Then again, I'm not a professor, I have no college degree, and my career
> choice is "Code Monkey" so, does that exclude me from being a scientist?
>
> Do I need a career as a researcher to consider myself a scientist?
No. Until quite recently most scientists had a day time job too. Very
few could live from just doing science.
> You see. That simple statement she made threw me into an existential
> crisis ...
>
> I'm socially awkward... but, that only makes me a nerd, not a scientist :)
The two are not mutual exclusive.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 11 May 2010 19:05:36 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Uh... I can't actually remember the title now. Let me go check...
>>>
>>> ...OK, the copy on his website has different cover art [sigh], but I
>>> believe it was Climbing Mount Improbable.
>>
>> OK, so that's one book. The more important works that he wrote had to
>> do with genetics.
>
> 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. ;-)
>>>> But in my circles, Richard Dawkins is quite well know. So's Jane
>>>> Goodall, for that matter.
>>> My point being that you don't need to be in any particular "circles"
>>> to know who Einstein or Newton is.
>>
>> Well, you assume everyone has heard of them. There's probably some guy
>> living in a little village in a remote part of Africa who's never heard
>> of either of them.
>
> I meant in general Western culture. People have written books and made
> films about Einstein, Newton and the like. They're that all known that
> "almost everybody" knows of them. I doubt too many people know who, say,
> William Harvey.
>
>>> Even very small children have heard the tale of how Newton was hit on
>>> the head by an apple. (I wonder if that myth actually happened?)
>>
>> It didn't; there was a bit on an episode of QI this series that talked
>> about the myth.
>
> What a surprise...
>
> (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
>>> Everybody has heard of Archimedies, even if they're not sure exactly
>>> what he did.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there's nobody alive today of quite the same stature -
>>> except perhaps Steven Hawking.
>>
>> 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...)
You might refute it, a straw poll might be a start, but a poll of 20
people isn't a particularly statistically valid poll.
As for pronunciation, I'm guessing Vint Cerf is the one you are having
trouble with - I gave a clue, when I said "Cerfing". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
