ewmon

One of the nice things about America is that everyone's entitled to voice their own opinions. For example, , although a bit outdated (has it really been 40 years?!). I think America has some unique qualities, which I think are based on personal freedoms, that others have tried to imitate in their own ways but have hurt themselves in the process ... the Soviet Union, Japan, perhaps the European Union, and also perhaps China. (I might also add to that list, the southern US Confederacy.) It also doesn't hurt to have such vast and diverse natural resources as the US has. As always, time will tell.

It seems it's not a matter of translating the sensed motion from one Cartesian system to another. Combining three signals into one input? There's the magnitude of the resultant, but that alone fails to fully quantify the motion, unless you can translate the output of the filter into the three axes by using θ and φ. I can't see how it's scientifically justifiable to use a combined signal in this way. The magnitude could remain fairly constant as θ and φ fluctuate wildly, and the filter would never know. I don't know that much about this kind of filtering. No matter how the three signals would combine into one, there's two dimensions that are being "lost".

While I have worked with three-axes accelerometers, I have not done so in MATLAB, but D H does broach valid concerns. What is the purpose of your work? What advantage would be the sensed acceleration in spherical or cylindrical coordinates compared to Cartesian coordinates?

I would hesitate to say yes not only due to field distribution but also differences in frequency response and whatever phenomenon might occur at the aluminum-silicon junction.

Yeah, I have used Sterno and other such products, and their barely visible flames can cause problems, especially with little kids around. One would think at least one (or more) makers of the cans of jellied alcohols would include an adulterant in the jelly (such as salt) that would automatically produce an markedly visible flame. I haven't come across one yet. It's as if the makers want you to burn your fingers.

In some cases, the prosecutor will discuss with victims or families of victims alternative forms of prosecution. For example, in a murder case where the proof is not overwhelming, the prosecutor might try to explain to the family that, if he tries to get the death sentence (juries decide the conviction, and mostly judges decide the sentence), the jury, which knows this, might lessen their conviction of the accused (for example, second degree or manslaughter — or even not guilty — instead of first degree) in order to avoid the possibility of the death penalty that could be given only under first degree. In another example, in a rape case, where the proof is not overwhelming, the prosecutor might try to explain to the victim that, if he tries the accused for rape, the jury might not convict the accused due to the great stigma of rape compared to, say, aggravated indecent assault. The prosecutor might tell the victim that, with the indecent assault conviction, the accused will serve about the same amount of time, be required to successfully complete a sex offender rehabilitation program, be on a sex offender registry for the remainder of his life, etc. The prosecutor might even want try the accused on a lesser, yet more certain, conviction in order to be able to turn around and have the accused committed for life under a three-strikes statute. In this case, the prosecutor may be discussing the possibility of the accused being found innocent but insane, in which case he may be put in a high-security mental state hospital for, for example, "a day to life", but obviously, like Charles Manson, has no chance of being released. What the prosecutor doesn't want is wanting to agree with something like an "innocent but insane" finding while the victims and families are emotionally clamoring for the death penalty. In some/many? states, at the other end of the court case, the victims or the families of victims are allowed to make statements in court after the conviction but before the sentencing, and so they can also influence the sentencing at the point. This is unfair from the perspective that the victims or their families are not under oath at this point, and they can easily (and with impunity) "misrepresent the truth" to boost the punishment that the accused receives, and there's little that the accused can do.

Aren't the Aurora Cinema Killings simply the three- or four-sigma (or more) "tail" of a society already gone wrong, and that "guns" matter, but not in the way you would expect? Gun ownership in America has been around for centuries, and it was even less restricted "back then" than it is now. But there wasn't this kind of violence back then. When I was a prepubescent "kid", we would "shoot" each other with cap guns. When we got only a couple years older (teenagers), playing with cap guns was deemed "stupid", even though we had snowball fights with each other, which was still pretty tame. Now, we have kids and teenagers and young adults playing MMORPG's, where they can "shoot" and "kill" strangers as well as friends. Added to that, we have real-life paintball games, which are cap guns with a punch — literally. Shooting each other, whether with real (paint) guns or not, has advanced out of early childhood into adulthood. Our younger generations are not growing up. Am I the only one who sees how American society has shifted radically toward the violent end of the spectrum? Am I the only one who is not surprised that someone shot up a theatre full of people watching a so-called action movie called "The Dark Knight Rises", and not a chick flick or a fun adventure for the whole family? Modern superheroes have taken on a few different forms. Superman was born with natural abilities to fly through the air, see through walls, and pick up and toss locomotives. Spiderman has natural abilities to do a bunch of otherwise impossible things caused by the bite from a radioactive spider. But Batman is just a regular human whose abilities are mostly in the form of "gadgets". Guns are gadgets, aren't they? Even if someone wanted to be the hero in real life, it's impossible to be Superman or Spiderman, but it's relatively easy to be Batman. I stopped watching Batman movies a few reincarnations ago. At that time, he was an anti-hero rather than the archetypal hero (for example, a cowboy wearing a white hat, riding a white horse, someone unquestionably well-founded in goodness and decency, etc). Batman, who attempts to be a heroic protector of the public, suffers from strong, unresolved demons that draw him toward being a dark and brooding vigilante. How much more confused or ambiguous would be the villains, such as the Joker, compared to him? Are we really surprised after all? Guns don't shoot people; adults who never grew up do.

Many people early in their scientific pursuits simply don't realize the vast amount of labor, time and money that goes into research. When teachers or textbooks present any history of science, they almost always show single lines of successes and improvements, and none of the many. many, many failures by others along the way. This being a year for the Summer Olympics, I'll use the 100 metres dash as an example. I think this popular view of the history of science can be equated to a listing of the progression of record times in the 100 metres dash. One receives the impression, for example, that the top nine record times (shown in the link) involved only several men from a few countries over the past 10 or 15 years, when in reality, these records culminated from countless boys and men throughout the world running perhaps millions of races and learning, comparing and practicing techniques for over 100 years.

Alan McDougall, in relpying to your question of What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?, how was the 1/1040,000 probability derived?

Alan McDougall, the 1/1040,000 probability actually refers to the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for the simplest living cell. How was this probability derived? We know that amino acids are the building blocks of enzymes, so what part of the probability that you give is the chance of obtaining the required amino acids for those enzymes?

That's easy, one water wheel is driven by the water dropping from a reservoir that turns another wheel that lifts some water from the same reservoir. In the same sense, we have had the hydraulic ram around for centuries with only a couple of moving parts that does the same thing ... takes the energy from falling water to lift some water. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWqDurunnK8 or an even simpler pulser pump without any moving parts

How about ... Hero's Fountain

I don't know how the naturally blind could naturally understand sight, but I can say how I could explain it to them. It's like having tiny strings attached to every part of every object, and they are connected to the eyes. Your eyes sense the direction the strings come from. A closer object blocks strings from a farther object that's "behind" it. As objects traverse your field of vision, the strings follow them. As an object approaches, the angular "size" between the strings increases. When you see the angular sizes increasing for the whole object, you can either figure that it's expanding like an inflating balloon or it's moving closer to you. The opposite occurs when the angular size decreases. This can be easily demonstrated by placing an object between adjacent, straightened fingers (or chopsticks, knitting needles, etc) and moving it toward the hand or fingertips. Binocular depth perception can be explained with triangulation. Binocular depth perception should change appropriately with angular size changes; otherwise, the object is either inflating or deflating. Color can be information in the strings such as amplitude and frequency of vibration, about one octave of six notes for the standard colors (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet) and off-note frequencies for all the colors in between. White is all the colors "sounding" together (like "white noise" ... hmmm), black is "silence". Color intensities as well as highlighted and shaded parts of objects can be explained with amplitudes. TV, videos, photos, paintings and drawings are flat surfaces with these strings coming out as if the objects were behind the surface. Your binocular depth perception tells you that the surface is flat, thus the illusion of depth tricks your eyes only with angular size and overlap. However, lack of binocular depth does not spoil the illusion all that much, especially if it is depicting something of interest, like a loved one's face.

I didn't know where the title about "recognizing certain species as persons" was going, but now that I've read the OP, I agree that highly intelligent animals (regardless of being social or not — as some felids are not very social), should be free from imprisonment and forced breeding. To the list of great apes, elephants and cetaceans, I also lean toward adding canids, maybe felids, and perhaps other carnivores such as bears, sea lions, seals, etc ... and just possibly a few kinds of cephalopods. To the inhumanity of imprisonment and forced breeding, I would also add forced labor — basically circus acts and elephants used in forestry or tourism, but also activities such as dogs used in law enforcement (and even guide dogs once artificial vision reaches a certain sophistication). Every now and then, we read about a police dog being shot/killed etc ... I mean, did the dog ask for this hazardous/deadly duty, or was it forced upon it? Of course it was forced. As it is, in some/many jurisdictions, police dogs are officially recognized as police officers, and if someone harms/shoots one, they are charged with harming/shooting a police officer. So in this example, we already have highly intelligent animals legally recognized as "persons". As for imprisonment, the larger and more natural the enclosure, the less of a "cage" it forms and the more a "game preserve" it becomes; so it seems that the definition of the prohibited "cage" should be a function of each particular species. As for forced breeding, with a large enough enclosure and population, the more natural the mating selection, and thus, the less "forced" the breeding. So, what I'm driving at is that, with sufficient enclosure and population, the concepts of imprisonment and forced breeding would not exist even though the animals remain under human control and observation. I'm talking about a Jurassic Park concept where the animals roam "free" (to a great extent), and the zoo guests are the ones with limited movement. I think each continent should have at least one (and probably a few or several) game preserve(s) for highly intelligent animals not native to that continent so that people need not be required to have/expend the prohibitive finances required, for example, to visit Africa in order to experience apes, elephants, lions, etc "in the wild".

Whispering galleries operate in a similar manner, and I personally experienced the one at the US capitol. I suppose electronics could produce something similar without the special architecture.

At least in America, motive is not required to be shown or proven (such as "Son of Sam" and other weirdly- or randomly-motivated cases); otherwise, some criminals could commit random crimes with impunity. I think Iota93 has a point especially as, at least stereotypically, the French are portrayed as being xenophobic. They have this preservation-of-the-French-language attitude, and is it really true what they say about the French being standoffish?? Yeah, if I ran a business to the public, I'd feel flattered that someone was recording our operation, whether we were landscapers, restaurateurs, etc. Yet, major league sports and entertainment professionals sometimes have clauses on their tickets or in the broadcasting about prohibiting the recording of the event. Funny though, that the device in question saves the images only(?) if damaged.

On 2012 July 1, a man wearing computer-assisted spectacles was assaulted by staff in a Parisian McDonald's, who tried to pull the glasses off his head then threw him out of the restaurant, according to a blog post written by the victim. The McDonald's staff seemed angered by the high-tech vision-ware worn by Dr Steve Mann who is an academic at the University of Toronto and an expert in wearable computing. Mann has worn the computer-assisted spectacles, known as the EyeTap Digital Eye Glass, pictured below, for 13 years. Okay, being a geek is no reason for the rough treatment, but maybe they didn't like having their picture taken. Any other thoughts, comments or speculations?

Where did you hear/read about it?

Piezoelectric crystals

Fungal? Bacterial? Tell us more.

I haven't really read through this website, but it seems to show Einstein's derivation step by step: The Derivation of E=mc2

I think the OP's question, although surrounded by factual difficulties, is based on a legitimate observation regarding face-to-face versus doggie style, to which, I believe, science provides a valid reason. I see the differences in sexual positions as a result of changes in physical construction brought on by evolution. If you look at the construction of four-legged animals, you'll notice that their torsos are generally deeper than they are wide and that their limbs are primarily directed toward the ventral (ie, belly), with their range of motion very limited. If you notice animals that get onto their backs, they are generally not stable (or comfortable) in that position, and they cannot easily get their limbs "underneath themselves" to right themselves, leaving them very vulnerable. As primates evolved bipedal locomotion, their torsos became flatter front-to-back, with their torsos being wider than they are deep, most pronounced in humans, and among humans, most pronounced in Asians who tend to have (for example) much flatter pelvises than other human "races". The limbs are primarily directed toward the posterior and have a much greater range of motion. This allows either gender to lie down comfortably (or stand up or sit down), and thus, to facilitate face-to-face sex much more easily. Not only do humans rest (and even sleep) comfortably on their backs, but their limbs can also rotate toward the dorsal direction, the arms propping up their end of the torso on elbows, and the legs propping up their end of the torso on feet. Long ago, westerners encountered native people (I'm not sure where), who typically engaged in sex in a modified "missionary" position, where the females completely levitated their torsos, allowing them much greater abilities to thrust their pelvises, and the males must have been on "hands and knees" or some similar position. Another evolutionary modification apparently caused by bipedal locomotion/stance is that the penis, whose direction seems limited in most animals toward the anterior (thus limiting allowable sex positions, such as doggie style), can hang down (toward the posterior), which prevents males from urinating up themselves and allows the urethra to drain completely while standing and, as a collateral effect, probably allows comfortable sex in more positions.

The derivation of the equation is what causes the squaring of the speed of light. What I'm about to say is certainly not the same thing as E=mc², but when you look at the kinetic energy of an object, it's equation is KE=½mv². Momentum, on the other hand, is M=mv. So, you have two equations concerning kinetic energy and momentum, one with velocity squared, and the other not. But it all comes from the derivation, just as with E=mc², and once you read through the derivation, you'll realize that it all makes sense.

Environmental Science seems like a very flexible and relevant degree, and I think you could find work in environmental testing, microbiology, green chemistry, etc. If not your final career destination, they would be stepping stones. Certainly do not despair. This kind of career adjustment is very common, employers not only expect it but also may welcome the fact that you have tried and rejected other work and narrowed your career path. And as I said, your degree applies to many fields. Rresume. Perhaps you should re-arrange your resume in this order: Summary, Education, Experience, etc in order to emphasize your career goals (Summary) and your education, and to de-emphasize your current position. Make a few slightly different versions of your resume, by juggling around the subjects listed in the summary that you studied for your degree. Examples: for a biochem lab job, "BS in Environmental Science with studies in chemistry, biology, ecology, physics, etc."; for an enviro lab job, "BS in Environmental Science with studies in chemistry, soil science, ecology, biology, atmospheric science, etc.", and so on. Interviews. Give some reason for your first choice of job: location, employer, closer to GF/BF/SO, able to work outdoors, etc/whatever that swayed you away from biology, genetics, etc/whatever interests. Exaggerate if necessary. Then tell them the downside to that sort of work, and that you realize that you have been longing for the biology, genetics, etc/whatever work you did in school. Refresh your mind of your school work in bio, chem, etc/whatever and give examples in the interview, particularly of any lab work. Why did you wait two years to change? Give exemplary qualities: You wanted to fully experience the work, you didn't want to be a flash in the pan, you felt loyalty to the employer, you wanted to finish an important work project, etc. Don't appear fickle about switching/narrowing your career path; exude a settled conviction. Show a maturing process in your attitude.

Architekt, basically all of what you have said in this thread makes no sense, and your attitude makes no sense, so I voted down your post #11. I gave you two bona fide methods for determining the center of mass of an object, and now you have changed the topic to "the electron" and E=mc². Your statements make no sense separately or together. The terms "random" and "incoherent" seem to describe your posts best. Maybe if you take a deep breath, clear your head and start again from the beginning?