Acme

I remain unconvinced following a few big dives. I'll have a look. I see more questions than answers there. It looks like minimal advantage over conventional methods but with the added cost of all the electrical equipment such as electrodes, wires, controllers, etc.. Perhaps you could quote the information you think is worthwhile from that massive text. This seems like a minimal increase in germination rate, but if it was to be found significant and effective then it would likely be best implemented by seed producers. But again, is all the apparatus and additional handling worth the small increase? Alas only the Abstract is freely available. I remain unconvinced of any significant lab results let alone any real practicality for full-scale gardens or farms. Installing, protecting, maintaining, and replacing all those wires, electrodes, controllers, and other such equipment as required seems prohibitively expensive even if modest improvement in production were demonstrated. I am all too much reminded of the Road to Welleville. It's all fun & games until someone gets electrocuted.

Ok. Myself answers because it acts just like a bell and we don't call 'a bell' 'bells' just because we can rotate it. Choose a plane through a bell's axis of rotation and you could chop a tuning fork out of it.

Hofstadter's 'Strange Loops' are not simply loops that are strange. You will understand that (I hope) when you read the book. If I thought your considerations were consistent with Doug's I wouldn't keep harping on the subject and simply say 'that's what Hofstadter thinks.' I spent more than an hour watching and photographing the eclipse after 4 days of planning for it. Despite a few unlucky chance events such as clouds and a stuck shutter, I grokked the togetherness. That's certainly a descriptive passage, but hardly explanatory. Again; descriptive but not explanatory. Yes to the first part, no to the second. For example, for many schizophrenics their experience of the world is neither actual nor wonderful. No; cleverness is not evident. At least not universally any more than your actual and wonderful world is universally evident. As I have said numerous times, 'it' is [could be] by chance. Chance is not an anathema to wonder.

It was the size I expected. I had 3 cameras to try and it was my handy-cam that took the day. My film SLR with a 205mm lens decided to lock the shutter open so it was a bust. (putting the 28mm lens on and pointing it at a bright window this morning satisfied the meter & closed the shutter.) The 'new' little digital camera has only a 13x zoom and despite trying every setting possible the results were dismal. The still function on the handy-cam uses 20x optical zoom and has a Carl-Zeiss lens and using manual exposure I got some acceptable shots. Biggest drawback is it's only 1mp. Also shot some video, but that resolution is even lower. For you budding astro-photographers, if you're not willing to stand around chilled to the bone for long periods, you're pursuing the wrong ambition.

Yes well, it's obvious you have your own ideas. You might consider those ideas are mistaken if not incomplete. Consider that all you have written about how the Universe is this way or that way is knowledge you have acquired from the experiments/enquiries of others, i.e. you didn't yourself discover the nature of crystals or the heart or any of such references you rely on. Just read the book before you criticize it based only on what you think Hofstadter knows.

Danke. Mine has a shaped rim; see attached photo. I asked and myself is thinking about it. He can be so dense sometimes.

I think you would not think there is cleverness. This because cleverness and the other terms substituted here for it are all human concepts and what makes humans human is their "I-ness". It is the strange-loopiness of "I-ness" that Hofstadter explores and delineates. I should not have added "blind" to chance; it is redundant. I think it is just as by chance that things cease to exist as come to exist. In our day-to-day lives we simply ignore the role of chance in things not going as we expect, because otherwise we would be so fixated on doom we would not get anything done. In fact we see such fixations among people manifest in such maladies as hypochondria, depression, and other such psychological disorders that interfere in day-to-day existence.

So there is a Lunar eclipse coming Monday night & I want to photograph it. Whether film or digital I have always had my Moon photos turn out overly bright & no detail of craters when I use auto metering/exposure. Hints, tips, advisements?

You're just going to have to read the book for yourself.

Bee Flies - Family Bombyliidae @ BugGuide >> http://bugguide.net/node/view/185 @ Wiki >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombyliidae

Just the lower frequencies. Compare the two spectrograms. Ouside the bell there is significant response in the lower frequencies (hundreds of Hz) Inside the bell the response is skewed towards the higher frequencies (thousands of Hz) Roger. And that difference is because the lower frequencies have longer wavelengths that don't fit inside, whereas the higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths that do fit. Oui? By jove; I think I've got it!

Yes they work for free, but they only work on what they want to. What did you say? The diagrams from your link are similar to those from my post#14 and the comment noted above is exactly what I said about my diagram c in post#14. I did not fully pursue the implications of that at that time but it is the underlying mechanics of the effect. Roger. I think I may be getting it. So colloquially speaking, there is not enough space inside the bell for the sound to 'develop'. ??

I don't understand what that means in the context of this thread. While public free speech is codified in some places, this forum is a private enterprise and no such protection granted. While Swan argues that stirring up trouble isn't trolling if the stirrer believes what they say, I argue that trouble makers are as trouble makers do. If folks don't make trouble [here] then no one has to spend time trying to figure out the intent, which frees people to spend that time in decent discussion.

Ooooopss! We were right in the middle of something & forgot to tell you about the other thread on it. >> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82652-new-documentary-on-geocentrism-due-out/

Heaven forbid anyone should lead you to discover something. Mia culpa. Your loop is not strange. Again, I know you don't like the thought, but it is not silly; it's the way things are. Since whether we by chance survive another dawn, and since 'counting on' is an 'I" thing, then your situation is indeed not assured. Sdrager, Acme PS I had more that I expected to write with all that, but the grandkids unexpectedly wanted waffles for breakfast and now I have lost the thoughts. Que sera sera.

Accepting your above assertion, you might consider anyway that your writing bears self-critical examination. Whether you mean it or not, you communicate a bias that is objectionable in this venue. Blaming your error on your age or culture may be a reason, but it's no excuse. As my mother used to say, if you don't have anything decent to say, keep your mouth shut.

You're welcome. The report I cited said: Note the bolded underlined part. I think people restoring/planting natural forage would be the next best idea. By 'people' I mean farmers as well as government and individual citizens.Were the natural forage that has been eliminated restored, wild bees could add substantially to the pollination needs of commercial crops. Humans are evolved omnivores. Moreover it is humans who have taken out [wild] bees so it is humans who should restore them. That we know as much is at least some indication/promise that we can do as much to fix our mistakes.

The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Well, it's all got my head ringing like a bell. I have been off reading on bell acoustics and that has pretty much broke my clapper (tongue in bell parlance apparently.) I reread #4 & #52 and I'm no closer to the murderer than I was before. Mr. Plum in the conservatory with the lead pipe? IDK I did run across some node mappings but confusion soon set in trying to differentiate between modes & nodes in the explanations. Egat Brain!! This is a specific bell, but is it how bells vibrate in general? Will it be of any help to me in understanding what's going on inside? Help me Obi Wan. source: >> http://www.acoustics.org/press/133rd/4pmu4.html Edit: So I found a stainless pot lid about 8" across to experiment with. Definitely louder outside near the rim than inside at the plane of the rim. But sticking my ear further inside the loudness did increase as I was suggesting earlier. So is 'loudness' not the right term for what we're investigating? I also rotated the lid as it was ringing and with my ear on the outside near the rim the loudness seemed to go up & down. Is that because of the nodes & antinodes?

I haven't found a suitable 'bell' to experiment with yet, so I'm just venturing a guess at your findings based on all that has been said. Guess: The surprise is that when you put the pickup deeper into the bell than your ear can go, the pressure level is higher than when the pickup is located at ear level. ??

Something newer about something older about something boulder.

I wish I could claim some special charm or good looks, but I have neither. It boils down to enthusiasm minus money plus blind luck. Chaos favors the prepared imagination. I don't think I can add much over Charon's explication. While he wasn't explicit on the strobe use I could see setting up in a darkened situation, locking the shutter open as for a time exposure, and then firing the strobe at the target. Even so this is pretty limited in its application and gives a multiple exposure. This outfit not only sells, but rents high-speed video cameras, and if one had a special project then renting makes sense. >> http://www.mctcameras.com/ Following up on a theme above, there is the matter of photographers building apparatus and settings for special purposes. Back in my film days I was interested in creating a photographic illustration of the principle of total internal reflection in a water stream. Step 1 was building a so-called 'fairy fountain' to accomplish the light caught in a water stream. (Glass 1 gallon jug with small hole drilled 1/3 the way up & all painted black except for a clear aperture opposite the hole.) That done and a few photos taken I found the composition rather boring so decided to make a multiple exposure using different orientations. To that end I built a tripod mounted platform that allowed me to rotate the camera 360º around the lens axis. (you will see in the result I was a little off in the centering.) So in a darkened room with the camera on the Bulb setting, I used a cable release to lock the shutter open but kept the lens cap on. I then activated the fountain and successively removed the lens cap a few seconds, put it back on, rotated the jig a ways, removed the cap, put the cap back on, and so on 'til I completed a full rotation. I made a number of shots using different filters, timings, and numbers of exposures in a rotation. While I lost all the negatives in a fire, I had one 8x10 print pressed in a book and was able to scan it. Picture in science or science in picture?

2

Yes; the oldest living known specimen is over twice that age. I happened to be researching the question lately and ran across the following. source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees From the same source and concerning clonal colonies, there is this. All-in-all, I see no evidence that any individual living thing is immortal.

Accepting that the algorithm is correct, i.e. returns n!, then the best way I know to see if it's faster than others is to bench test it against others. Here's a page with 5 flavors for you to try: >> http://www.luschny.de/math/factorial/FastFactorialFunctions.htm