Reply With Quote
There is a simple cure to diabetes:putting the fork down.
That whole course is really awesome. It's just freshman mechanics, but the professor is probably the greatest teacher I have ever seen. If you want to see the whole thing, it's class 8.01 at MIT OpenCourseWare. He does tons of awesome experiments in all the videos.
There is a simple cure to diabetes:putting the fork down.
Nah man, that's just freshman level physics. I know a couple of true geniuses, and no one at spurstalk fits that.
Never taken pchem. Is that like statistical mechanics?
Have you tried Google?
my favorite professor i ever had was my freshman intro chem teacher (even though i had already taken AP chem in HS, ucla wants you to take all their over again anyway).
while i will probably regret this, that is young spurraider21 volunteering for a silly experiment back in 2009. not my channel, but i classmate posted it way back
the prof is totally badass and is a semi-legend at UCLA for this video...
oh... and he always does this once a quarter for every class he teachers
Curious is all.
And I see the beauty of Physics, not nearly deeply as some.
I got my BS in molecular biology, and masters in Biochem. I worked hard. It did not all come easy.
But physics is so much cleaner. One can't put much interesting math to biology as it has so many variables. It's all boring and highly statistical or just computer modeling.
Thats why it makes me laugh when mouse says science can't figure out Druids or whomever.
Mouse obviously sees science as much more than it really is. We know almost exactly what the moon will be doing two years from now because it follows fairly basic laws. But he wants a math formula for why he became a mystic. He has not the slightest idea what science can and cannot do because he has never really participated in any way, and has never really thought about the different ways humans try to understand the world around them. Including the difference between science, religion, and philosophy.
Last edited by pgardn; 04-02-2014 at 07:49 PM.
Both of my Organic Chemistry teachers were awesome. Too bad no video of them. I had a bunch of good teachers. My physics teachers were horrible. Yet I find Physics the most agreeable. Even though I forgot more than I now know. You can work physics problems a number of different ways and come up with the same similarities using very different approaches. It's like Xmas presents that change.
CROFL, I loved to egg on the yelling re preachers on Bruin Walk whenever my first class of the day was on North Campus. You're all fornicators! You're all going to !
hey mouse this is how science can help you specifically
This is how "Science" can prove a designer.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/arch...06902-p-2.html
Yeah.
Its better than actually taking the class...
Same crap at UT.
You are all sexials and sissies. sexials, never will forget that.
But did you have the burnout potsmoker and the community college Lyndon LaRouche supporters too? Favorite line I ever heard yelled while walking to class: "I don't smoke weed cuz I'm STU-PID. I smoke weed cuz I'm SMART!" and then he plays doo-doo-doo-doo on his flute.
iirc the pchem series i took was two parts, the the first part was largely thermodynamics/equilibrium and kinetics. the second segment we covered some statistical mechanics and quantum chemistry aka bonds/shapes. i dont recall to much statistical mechanics in there in my experience. i think if i was just a chem major and not biochem i would have gone further into it
god did it
I had to take P chem. The thermo was not bad. The most common word, adiabatic. The quantum was horrible and I could not understand the prof from Taiwan. Pos tiv Pos tiv neg tiv neg tiv...
And you guys went to UCLA?
Jesus $$$...
The drag in Austin is...
Well it had every type of earthling imaginable.
But hugely interesting.
Right up from there along the main mall to the tower political arguments from all over the world lining both sides of the wide walkway.
Hindu v. Muslim Indians ... Llamas arguing with Camels... Everything.
not done just yet. graduating in a couple of months
Twerking The Zeitgeist: Fans Of Science Should Be Worried About Cosmos Ratings
The reboot of Cosmos was on the must-see television list for many; it is a prime-time non-fiction science program, with one of the best hosts in science media, a generous budget, airing on 10 channels, and even had music by the guy who did Captain America. Excitement was high.
Then it actually began. It had an alarming non-science gaffe - the story of the likely insane philosopher Bruno reconfigured to be...what exactly, no one is sure. 25% of Episode One was devoted to talking about mean old religion in the middle of a narrative about cosmology only to have Neil Tyson then dismiss the entire story as Bruno not being a scientist anyway.
So what was the point of it in a science program again? Scorn for it somehow managed to bring together religious people and science historians, some to wonder if Cosmos was just an atheism PR move by outspoken atheist Seth MacFarlane or if Ann Druyan doesn't know what she is talking about.
I dismiss the latter, with a qualification. Ann Druyan is quite literate (1) and we don't know who botched the Library of Alexandria story on the original Cosmos. I wondered instead if Cosmos was a victim of lofty expectations. It isn't going to make people accept the science of GMOs or vaccines and it isn't going to make Young Earth Creationists think the world is 6,001 or more years old, it is just a TV show, I offered, and we should just enjoy it. I defended its ratings when it was prematurely declared a disaster.
But regardless of why it's not doing well, there is a money aspect to television programming and it is not looking good for prime-time science shows on network television, whether because it's science or because Cosmos is just not very good outside to those a tiny core of viewers. 4 million people in an hour is not bad, that is 4X the readers Science 2.0 has in a month, but the money spent on Cosmos was a far greater multiple too.
The numbers are bad. In the core demographic of adults 18-49, Cosmos dropped another 12 percent from a week ago and its total viewers last night were down another 9 percent also. That's a drop of 49 percent from week one (not including the simulcast numbers - across all channels Cosmos had 8.5 million viewers but let's not mix apples and Venus). It's still 70% better than Bob's Burgers at 7 PM but a drop from Family Guy for the first time. That means Fox is losing viewers it counted on.
Family Guy is still popular but maybe America has left Cosmos behind.
Culture is different today. The same culture that made the original Cosmos a hit also elected Ronald Reagan that same year. There were a lot more socially conservative Democrats and compassionate Republicans than we find now, and despite what the brains behind Cosmos think, people were not as scientifically literate then as they are now. Fox did not even have a TV network. Seth MacFarlane was 7 years old.
Today, the best endorsement Cosmos is getting is Bill Maher telling his friend MacFarlane he watched it twice - because he wanted to see it stoned. What's next, is Neil Tyson going to be in a Jack In The Box commercial getting late-night drive-thru food to try and drum up eyeballs?
At a San Diego Comic Con panel last summer, the folks behind the show wisely did a panel. Movie and television executives know people who have the disposable income to be at comic book conventions are a goldmine for advertisers so 'nerd cred' is crucial. Ann Druyan said the pendulum was swinging back to science and they wanted to 'twerk the Zeitgeist' and that statement may be part of the issue they are having reaching people; the creators of the show may be living in some other multiverse America where science is not accepted.
America leads the world in adult science literacy, America is the only country where college students are required to take science courses, America leads the world in Nobel prizes and in science output, with only 5 percent of the world's population.
Yet Druyan and MacFarlane, at least, feel like America is some religious backwater and Cosmos is going to fix it. One thing science media - well, science media without gigantic TV budgets - know is that assuming deficit thinking on the part of the public is never a good idea. You aren't going to raise science acceptance by assuming people are ignorant and that if you reach them with cartoons and graphics they will embrace it. In reality, America is diverse. Some people are never going to accept evolutionary biology just like some people will never accept food biology - spending time finding clever ways to take jabs at them in a short television program isn't constructive.
Cosmos is basically calling the audience uninformed - except the people watching it. In reality, the audience is far smarter about science than it was in 1980. Adult science literacy has tripled in America since 1988, and that means they don't respond to postmodernist gibberish about twerking the zeitgeist. Tyson, for his part, laughed that off and said if anything was getting twerked, it should be the zeitgeist - which means if he were not hosting Cosmos, he probably wouldn't be watching it.
http://www.science20.com/science_20/...ratings-133029
God damn, can a conservative write an article without mentioning Reagan's tired ass?
So will Repugs like this episode since it talks about the s?
Actually, probably not since it discusses when the Muslim world was the center of human knowledge.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
