Last Friday, I went on a tour of Tec-Smart , a new education and training facility in upstate New York (Malta, NY), which is just finishing construction. Tec-Smart stands for the Training and Education Center for Semiconductor Manufacturing and Alternative and Renewable Technologies.
TEC
Fred Luskin and Kenneth Pelletier on practicing smiling to handle stress.
"Automotive heaven must surely be something like this. This is only the main floor of L.A.'s Cor Auto Sales Company showroom with a Duesenberg Murphy berline on the left and a Rollston convertible on the right." - Richard Kelley
By far, the most popular former Duesenberg showroom is the one
dear friends,i like to introduce a sms based controller with a pc and 2 mobile phones .(sending end and reci...).
I am working on a power distribution design. I want to label the cables in a meaningful way, so the label contain useful information (eg.: cable type, size, cores, voltage, from/to etc) at the same time easily identifiable (eg.: unique tag+ Cable from/To ---> PW0021-MSB1/MCC1 ).
Is there
“Individuals’ faces communicate a great deal of information about them. Although some of this information tends to be perceptually obvious (such as race and sex), much of it is perceptually ambiguous, without clear or obvious visual cues… …Here we found that individuals’ political affiliations could be accurately discerned from their faces. In Study 1, perceivers were able to accurately distinguish whether U.S. Senate candidates were either Democrats or Republicans based on photos of their faces. Study 2 showed that these effects extended to Democrat and Republican college students, based on their senior yearbook photos. Study 3 then showed that these judgments were related to differences in perceived traits among the Democrat and Republican faces. Republicans were perceived as more powerful than Democrats. Moreover, as individual targets were perceived to be more powerful, they were more likely to be perceived as Republicans by others. Similarly, as individual targets were perceived to be warmer, they were more likely to be perceived as Democrats… …These data suggest that perceivers’ beliefs about who is a Democrat and Republican may be based on perceptions of traits stereotypically associated with the two political parties and that, indeed, the guidance of these stereotypes may lead to categorizations of others’ political affiliations at rates significantly more accurate than chance guessing.”
But the real question is, who’s more good-looking?
Thanks to Mary for today’s ROFL!
[Update: some commenters are saying this bill is dead in the water. That's music to my ears! Let's hope that info is correct. We'll see soon enough.]
Mississippi state representative Gary Chism has decided that science is stupid. After all, he submitted House Bill 586 to the legislature, which is in part,
AN ACT TO REQUIRE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS TO INCLUDE AN INSTRUCTIONAL LESSON ON THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANITY IN ITS HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CURRICULUM, WHICH SHALL BE TAUGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BIOLOGY COURSE; TO REQUIRE THAT THE CURRICULUM BE BASED ON CERTAIN EVIDENTIARY FACTS AND SCIENTIFIC DATA; TO REQUIRE THAT THE LESSON NOT BE BIASED THROUGH SELECTIVE INSTRUCTION; TO REQUIRE THAT THE LESSON HAVE EQUAL INSTRUCTION FROM EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS THAT PRESENT ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH PROTAGONISTS AND ANTAGONISTS OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
[ALL THAT SHOUTING is in the original bill.]
This is obviously another attempt by antireality anti-Constitution creationists to ram their religion down the throats of students. Chism, by the way, tried to get a disclaimer put into biology textbooks last year because he has mistaken the Bible for a science textbook. Anyway, if this bill passes, Mississippi will join the lofty ranks of such places as Texas, Kansas, and Dover, Pennsylvania as the laughing stocks of the nation and the world at large.
But there’s a funny thing in the bill. About teaching evolution, it says:
The lesson provided to students shall not evidence bias through selective instruction on the theory of evolution, but rather, shall have proportionately equal instruction from educational materials that present scientifically sound arguments by protagonists and antagonists of the theory of evolution.
Well, hey, I agree with that! Let them pass this bill! Because, of course, there is no scientifically sound argument by antagonists of evolution.
Creationists. Is there no dumbosity they can’t surpass?
The NCSE has more info. And if you live in Mississippi, especially District 37 where Chism supposedly represents the people, you may want to make your voice heard.
But if this bill does pass, then, of course:
Related posts:
Oklahoma: Doomed
Louisiana: Well, that’s it then
Texas: Careening toward doom
Sorry Texas, you’re still doomed
Tip o’ the Old Man River to Chad Gardner.
After the last post concerning Chad Orzel’s position on science and religion, I want to explore the central policy question here that seems to get everyone exercised, namely: What should the science/religion stance be for top science organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, etc?
Many “New Atheists” would argue that such organizations should stay silent on the question, and not lend credence to the view that science and religion can be compatible (even though they certainly can be for individual people, even if not in some grand philosophical way, as Orzel explains). Let me explain why I find the NA position to be exceedingly bad advice.
If you’re working in America today to promote the teaching or the public understanding of evolution, you are constantly going to be dealing with religious people–in various localities across the country; in regular queries through your website and by phone, and so on. Much of America is, after all, religious.
And that’s not all. Much of religious America has also been told, from various pulpits, by various friends, and by sundry New Atheists, that evolutionary science is incompatible with religion. This prevailing notion creates an incredible blockade preventing the acceptance of evolutionary science. For as we know from reams of polling data, in the United States, when you pit science against religion, science often loses.
Aware of this context, groups like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) take a stance likely to help some religious believers reject what they’ve been told from the pulpit, and move toward a more moderate stance on science and religion–in essence, from anti-science fundamentalism to middle-ground reconciliationism. To this end, NCSE states something factually true and indeed, undeniable: that not every religious person thinks science and religion are incompatible.
The veracity of this statement is not really open to debate. The issue here is simply whether such people exist, and of that there’s no doubt whatsoever. In this blunt factual sense, at least, science and religion are compatible–they are reconciled all the time by actual living, breathing human beings. You might take issue with the logical basis for such reconciliation in a particular mind, but you can’t deny that it happens regularly.
Moreover, if religion is the mental block that prevents a wider understanding and acceptance of evolution, then by seeking to remove that mental block, a group like NCSE is simply striving to be effective. Why should its hands be tied in this regard?
They shouldn’t. I mean, just picture the kind of conversations a representative of NCSE would have to have with a concerned religious believer if New Atheists were setting its policy:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: As a policy, we only talk about science and to not take any stance on religion. So we couldn’t comment on that.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: All we can really tell you is that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and universally accepted within the scientific community.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: ….
You get the point, I think. To me, it is obvious that, far from enforcing an unnecessary purism, a group like NCSE should be encouraged to speak with religious believers in terms they can understand, and in a way that will help them accept evolutionary science. The same goes for other science organizations.
I am working with Triangle Research PLCs for some projects at work. The headers that the manufacturer is using on there boards are:
pitch --- 5.08mm(0.2")
pin dia. - 14.224mm(0.56")
with anywhere from 2 - 8 pins.
I am in need of some board to board connectors that will all
At the Science Online 2010: Exploring Science on the Web conference in Research Triangle Park in North Carolina this past weekend, I attended a panel session of students from Stacy Baker’s Staten Island Academy Biology class. The panel, Blogging the Future — The Use of Online Media in the Next Generation of Scientists, featured eight students who covered the following topics:
We learned how students use social media tools for homework and daily interaction with classmates and friends. They’re jazzed about anything that involves their friends (interaction) or what friends/others think is cool (the buzz factor).
Their comments about Twitter:
I agree, from their perspective. My daughters don’t use Twitter. They text and Facebook their friends. They tease me about my TWaddiction, and threaten to take my iPhone from me during holidays — TWintervention. I digress….
Here’s how I see it:
Students have an extensive social network already. A well-populated, self-contained social bubble where the latest buzz spreads like a flash fire that consumes all the oxygen. Then they move on to the next buzz. Within their bubble, facebook meets their needs quite well. But, the moment they step out of their social bubble and yearn for the bigger buzz –timely information about what’s going on in the world, job fields or project funding — they may find Twitter useful. Or more likely they’ll leap-frog to the next social media buzz to follow Twitter.
Jack presented the games he created. We were totally blown away.
I piped up from the audience, saying someone needed to hire Jack. I asked Jack if he wanted to come to NASA and be an astronaut. He looked blankly like the words NASA and astronaut meant nothing to him. Someone else from the audience answered for him, ”Why would he want to be an astronaut, when he could be a game-developer?”
BTW: Did you know that the #1 career field for college graduates is game design?
Note: I received quite the ribbing about getting shot down by Jack. Oh NASA, we have SO much work to do! But, on the bright side, Salina was thrilled to talk about NASA.
Yay, SPACE-girl power!
Two major takeaways:
I leave you with this final image (and tweet) from the conference:
Hello Mechites,
I am working as a design engineer. And am fresh to the field. We make electrical connectors.
In our company, we have drawings muddled up from all those decades. So I proposed a plan to standardize the process. I also wanted to create a component database
So 5 months ago, I went to Walmart and bought myself an air mattress branded as "Main Stays", made in China. I believe it is nylon, if not some other kind of plastic. It has an electric pump and is pretty convenient to fill. So all these months, it's been working well.
A week back, th
Massachusetts is holding a special election tomorrow for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. The candidates are Martha Coakley, a Democrat and until recently the presumptive victor; Scott Brown, the Republican and until recently a little known state senator (mine in fact); and Joseph L. Kennedy, a Libertarian and no relation to Ted.
In most Massachusetts elections, I vote for the libertarian or write in my wife (also a libertarian). The Democrats always win, so I can vote my conscience without worrying how my vote might affect the outcome.
This election, however, is different. If the polls are to be believed, the race is close. And, having a 41st Republican in the Senate could defeat ObamaCare, which I view as evil. So, what's a libertarian to do?
I looked into Brown's and Kennedy's views on a range of issues. Kennedy is definitely libertarian, Brown more conservative. Thus, on economics they are similar and while on social issues they differ, with Kennedy's views closer to my own. Brown, however, is not ultra-conservative; he is personally opposed to abortion and gay marriage, but he believes abortion should remain legal while gay marriage should be left to each state.
The other factor to consider is that one-party rule is awful; gridlock is great.
So, which way will I vote?
PS: You might think Brown has a chance because of backlash over the economy and Obama excesses. That is part of the story, but in addition Coakly announced on a local radio show that Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan!
PPS: Brown might do better than the polls indicate because the Kennedy supporters will probably vote for Brown.
PPPS: My home phone rang about 5 times while I was writing this, all automated messages urging me to vote for Brown.
i am final electrical and electronics student i want an idea or title for my finl year project which is electronics based please suggest me an idea to do my final year project
how to check the installation and performance of vrf air conditioning system?
In his book Reasons and Persons, the philosopher Derek Parfit asks us to compare two scenarios: A nuclear war that kills 99 percent of the world's existing population, or 2) A nuclear war that kills 100 percent. The first outcome would be a horrible disaster, but the second would be an existential disaster: one that destroys the human race or irreversibly curtails our whole future.
Call the chance of such an event an "existential risk." The future promises a whole host of new ways the human race could be snuffed out: from AI gone wrong (see this previous article) to nanotechnology to synthetic biology and engineered viruses.
What makes existential disasters worse than even widespread personal disasters like cancer, which has killed billions of people? The future potential of the human race is the key difference: If a disaster kills all the people on the planet, then there will be no one to continue the human race. Our species has come a long way since the dawn of history, and if we work to preserve our humanity, our civilization, and our values, we may go a long way yet. There is a whole universe out there and it is huge beyond our wildest dreams—our own galaxy contains more solar systems than there are people on the planet, and our galaxy itself is merely a tiny mote of dust in the great sea of galaxies. If the human race can spread out and colonize a few dozen systems, it seems likely that it will also be able to colonize the entire reachable universe, which contains a whopping 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, and will last for perhaps 100,000,000,000 years.
The number of good human lives that could be lived in this time is simply too large to comfortably contemplate, and all those lives currently hang in the balance between existence and nonexistence, like an innumerable audience of ghostly figures looking down anxiously at the early twenty-first century. If any of the existential disasters actually occur, this future will be wiped out. In effect, the indirect death toll from an existential disaster is so big that all other disasters or humanitarian causes pale into complete insignificance in comparison.
Cosmologists, physicists who study the origin and evolution of the universe, know this better than anyone else. One world-renowned cosmologist after another has spoken out about existential risks. Stephen Hawking sits on the board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and has warned that mistakes in constructing artificial intelligence risk human extinction as well. Carl Sagan was active in efforts to avert nuclear war. Martin Rees, in his book Our Final Hour, has warned of risks of bioterrorism and biowarfare.
It is a tall order to preserve not just human civilization, but also our human values, through the disruptive forces of time, technology, and Darwinian selection. The "fragility of human values" thesis claims that many desirable properties that a possible future could have are delicate properties of human brains and culture that could easily be disrupted by technological, economic, and geopolitical forces. We value laughter, friendship, children, sexuality, music, art, family, humor, and nature, amongst many other things. All of these things exist only because the human brain happens to create them, and the human brain is also currently the most intelligent thinking machine in the world. Each day, women give birth to children who also have brains which contain that same magical combination of human value and useful intelligence. But if we create entities that are more competitive and intelligent than humans—entities that did not also value laughter, friendship, children, sexuality, music, art, family, humor, and nature—then there would be a serious risk that humans would lose control of the future, and that these new, inhuman minds would create the world as they saw fit, or as emergent political and economic trends dictated; a grim universe of shuffling electrons and economic transactions with no people and no joy. These dark futures where human civilization gradually shifts away from human values without a “bang” also count as existential risks, and are perhaps the most insidious and horrific to think about.
Existential risks are, from one point of view, the most important and pressing problem in the world, for they threaten humanity as a whole. Unfortunately, they are also grossly under-addressed in terms of research, funding, and effort. Gaverick Matheny writes, in his paper on reducing human extinction risks (pdf), that "A search of EconLit and the Social Sciences Citation Index suggests that virtually nothing has been written about the cost effectiveness of reducing human extinction risks," and Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg noted, in a personal communication, that there are orders of magnitude more papers on coleoptera—the study of beetles—than "human extinction." Anyone can confirm this for themselves with a Google Scholar search: coleoptera gets 245,000 hits, and "human extinction" gets fewer than 1,200.
This means that small groups or even individuals can make a difference to the outcome, by reading and understanding the subject or by supporting research into understanding and avoiding these risks at places like Oxford University's Future of Humanity Institute.
The potential of the human race is virtually limitless, but first we have to survive into the next century.
Part nine in a GOOD miniseries on the singularity by Michael Anissimov and Roko Mijic. New posts every Monday from November 16 to January 23.
Is there any organization in Hyderabad (India) organising self development work shops.If so, I am interested to be associated with them as a faculty . May contact me at
what is the standard voltage range for three phase four wire system?
First of all, Stephen Colbert from last evening: a discussion of mountaintop removal with one of the authors of a recent journal Science article on the subject, scientist Dr. Margaret Palmer. The article, “Mountaintop Mining Consequences”, was discussed here and it recommended the end of MTR. Kudos to the Colbert Report for having her on to discuss MTR. Unfortunately she also recommended the continued use of coal, which was really mystifying. Coal plants should be shut down as soon as possible. She even said coal jobs are important jobs, which I disagree with completely. Coal jobs might pay the bills but they are also killing men in their 30s and 40s from black lung disease and other diseases. Coal is not worth the price.
The Colbert Report
Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Can anyone pls. tell me what is the NPSHr for a vertical type submersible pump? Is it similar to the normal external centrifugal pumps? Or for submersible pumps only minimum submergence need to be investigated?
Thanks,
Shahnawaz
