Over at the FTH Forum markb mentioned that Stone Ruination IPA was available at Strong Bros. in Fayetteville. So of course I had to take the forty-five minute drive (one way) to get a few bottles, even though I was just at Strong Bros. for some Belgians a couple of weekends ago.
(Don't feel bad for me. I've got one in the fridge right now and I'm planning on making it my after-dinner beer tonight.)
In other news, I found a funny link detailing a variety of religious terms in a humorous (but still largely accurate) way while readng ScienceBlogs this morning. I'm also thinking of joining The UAH Fitness Center -- it'll only cost me $16.00 a month for the next semester, and hopefully it'll help me lose a bit of this beer gut. (I've had the stomach for longer than I've been drinking beer, but "beer gut" sounds so much more masculine than "hershey's kisses belly".)
Tomorrow I take the cats to the vet, what fun! My math placement test I got moved to Thursday, so tomorrow and Thursday morning will be cram days for me.
Tomorrow's blogging: turtles. I'll just leave it at that.
16 May 2006
15 May 2006
Addendum
Beth and I had lunch today at Arby's and she told me that she had read my post from yesterday. Being a software engineer, she had some ideas for the half-assed thoughts that I had put into my Computer Science section. She suggested Dijkstra and Babbage & Lovelace as co-equal to Turing and von Neumann, and I definitely agree.
That means I have to make a separate category for the mathematicians. I'll keep Euler and Riemann, and throw in Euclid and Leibniz (see, he gets billing as well as Newton) in for good measure.
Everybody happy now?
In other news, I just finished off some Papa John's pizza that we ordered Friday night when we were too tired to cook, and few things go better with Pizza than a Paulaner Hefe-Weizen. Cool bottle, too.
That means I have to make a separate category for the mathematicians. I'll keep Euler and Riemann, and throw in Euclid and Leibniz (see, he gets billing as well as Newton) in for good measure.
Everybody happy now?
In other news, I just finished off some Papa John's pizza that we ordered Friday night when we were too tired to cook, and few things go better with Pizza than a Paulaner Hefe-Weizen. Cool bottle, too.
14 May 2006
Mount Rushmore of Science?
Ever wake up way too early on a Sunday morning (yeah, I'm calling my mom in a little bit) and realize that you can't get back to sleep? For me, it generally happens because I start thinking about something I read the other day and, as long as my mind is churning, I'm not going to be able to sleep.
So, the other day I read a blog post here at Uncertain Principles that was discussing a theoretical "Mount Rushmore of Science", i.e. the four scientists who deserve to have their faces emblazoned on a huge rock for their contributions to scientific knowledge.
The original post postulated that Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were shoo-ins, and asked for the fourth face to go along. Personally, I think that given the first three, the only other person who deserves to be named along with them was Mendeleev (and commented to that effect), but over the last few days I've become more and more dissatisfied with the concept. There are just so many scientists that did so much important work, that to claim that the whole of science is in some way honored along with those four seems shortsighted.
Personally, I figure that if we're going to do it, we should break down our Mount Rushmore by category, picking four scientists from each major discipline of science. So I'm going to name my picks for Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, and Physics, because that was what I was thinking about this morning.
Astronomy: This is a tough one, since so many great astronomers only did work on a very tiny slice of the field, or only made one big discovery in their lifetime. I'd argue that Galileo and Kepler are shoo-ins, with Hubble being a sort of modern equivalent in terms of influence, but who gets the fourth spot? Copernicus is an obvious answer, but would mean that Hubble was the only scientist in modern history, which seems wrong. On a personal level I'd like to include William Herschel (discovered Uranus, first planetary to be discovered in historical times) but he's a bit obscure. Edmund Halley is probably the best person for the fourth position, just because of name recognition. I'd like to name an astrophysicist, but the only one that really comes to mind is Chandrasekhar, and he seems a bit too "recent" for inclusion on this kind of list. I could be argued out of it, but my list would be Galileo, Kepler, Halley, and Hubble.
Biology: A little easier than astronomy. Linnaeus, Mendel, and Darwin are the Big Three here, with the fourth spot again being a difficult fit. Aristotle could be placed here through his early work in taxonomy, but given the prescientific and nonempirical nature of his work, I don't like that option. A very recent popular figure might be Stephen J. Gould, but he's more of a popularizer than a scientist -- punctuated equilibrium's an important concept, but not so important as to be placed with the others. No, I think I'd include Theodosius Dobzhansky, whose work on the Modern Synthesis put the final nails in the coffin for the objections to the Theory of Evolution.
Chemistry: I'm going to be a bit controversial here. Dalton and Mendeleev certainly deserve admission, but the other two spots are hard to fill. Most would consider him more of a physicist, but I like Neils Bohr for the third spot, due to his work generating the mostly-accurate model of atomic structure that paved the way for the electron cloud model. Linus Pauling is my pick for the fourth spot, due to the important work he did in basically founding modern biochemistry.
Medicine:: You were wondering where Pasteur was in the biology section? This was the ace up my sleeve -- now I can put Pasteur and Watson & Crick (two heads taking the place of one discovery) in their proper place. Da Vinci also deserves placement here through his early work on human anatomy, and Edward Jenner gets my fourth spot, for his work on the very first vaccine, giving cowpox to innoculate against smallpox.
Physics: Still a crowded field. Newton and Einstein are obvious choices. I'd put Maxwell, who worked out the equations governing electromagnetic fields, on the list, but who's a good fourth? On a whim, I'd put Heisenburg on the giant rock, because his Uncertainty Principle paved the way for modern quantum mechanics.
What, no category for Computer Science? Well, maybe we could add a special category for Mathematicians and Computer Scientists, by that standard Euler, Riemann, Turing, and von Neumann are the four most deserving.
I'd also like to add a quick mention of those scientists who, for whatever reason, never really got the credit they deserved for their discoveries.
Henry Moseley was a contemporary of Niels Bohr and the Curies (aside: how did I forget Madame Curie? I still like Heisenberg on the physics Rushmore, but I could be convinced that Marie Curie should take the honors instead) who did important work on the atomic nucleus that paved the way for atomic energy. He was killed fighting in WWI, else he certainly would have won a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Nearly forgotten today.
Robert Oppenheimer is well-remembered today for his work managing the atomic bomb project, but he too never received the Nobel Prize. Most historians of science today believe that he would have won one for his work on the theory of black holes, had he only lived long enough to see his theories confirmed by actual observations of the stellar objects.
Rosalind Franklin. Regardless of how one feels about her real input into the structure of DNA, or how Crick handled the whole affair, I think it's clear that she deserves place on this list of scientists who drew the short stick when it comes to recognition. Never won a Nobel, most probably because she was dead by the time the awards to Watson and Crick were given. Would she have been included in the Prize had she lived? I'd like to think so, but obviously politics played a cruel hand here.
Alfred Russell Wallace was a contemporary of Darwin, who basically independently worked out the Theory of Evolution at around the same time Darwin did. For whatever reason, Wallace deferred to Darwin's recognition and ended up being known to history primarily as "Darwin's Bulldog", steadfastly defending the Theory of Evolution from its critics in the early days. For my money, though, he deserves equal credit with Darwin for the discovery, and that places him as one of those on my list of "shoulda-beens".
Okay. Time to call my Mom now. Maybe get a bit of shuteye before I have to leave.
So, the other day I read a blog post here at Uncertain Principles that was discussing a theoretical "Mount Rushmore of Science", i.e. the four scientists who deserve to have their faces emblazoned on a huge rock for their contributions to scientific knowledge.
The original post postulated that Newton, Einstein, and Darwin were shoo-ins, and asked for the fourth face to go along. Personally, I think that given the first three, the only other person who deserves to be named along with them was Mendeleev (and commented to that effect), but over the last few days I've become more and more dissatisfied with the concept. There are just so many scientists that did so much important work, that to claim that the whole of science is in some way honored along with those four seems shortsighted.
Personally, I figure that if we're going to do it, we should break down our Mount Rushmore by category, picking four scientists from each major discipline of science. So I'm going to name my picks for Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, and Physics, because that was what I was thinking about this morning.
Astronomy: This is a tough one, since so many great astronomers only did work on a very tiny slice of the field, or only made one big discovery in their lifetime. I'd argue that Galileo and Kepler are shoo-ins, with Hubble being a sort of modern equivalent in terms of influence, but who gets the fourth spot? Copernicus is an obvious answer, but would mean that Hubble was the only scientist in modern history, which seems wrong. On a personal level I'd like to include William Herschel (discovered Uranus, first planetary to be discovered in historical times) but he's a bit obscure. Edmund Halley is probably the best person for the fourth position, just because of name recognition. I'd like to name an astrophysicist, but the only one that really comes to mind is Chandrasekhar, and he seems a bit too "recent" for inclusion on this kind of list. I could be argued out of it, but my list would be Galileo, Kepler, Halley, and Hubble.
Biology: A little easier than astronomy. Linnaeus, Mendel, and Darwin are the Big Three here, with the fourth spot again being a difficult fit. Aristotle could be placed here through his early work in taxonomy, but given the prescientific and nonempirical nature of his work, I don't like that option. A very recent popular figure might be Stephen J. Gould, but he's more of a popularizer than a scientist -- punctuated equilibrium's an important concept, but not so important as to be placed with the others. No, I think I'd include Theodosius Dobzhansky, whose work on the Modern Synthesis put the final nails in the coffin for the objections to the Theory of Evolution.
Chemistry: I'm going to be a bit controversial here. Dalton and Mendeleev certainly deserve admission, but the other two spots are hard to fill. Most would consider him more of a physicist, but I like Neils Bohr for the third spot, due to his work generating the mostly-accurate model of atomic structure that paved the way for the electron cloud model. Linus Pauling is my pick for the fourth spot, due to the important work he did in basically founding modern biochemistry.
Medicine:: You were wondering where Pasteur was in the biology section? This was the ace up my sleeve -- now I can put Pasteur and Watson & Crick (two heads taking the place of one discovery) in their proper place. Da Vinci also deserves placement here through his early work on human anatomy, and Edward Jenner gets my fourth spot, for his work on the very first vaccine, giving cowpox to innoculate against smallpox.
Physics: Still a crowded field. Newton and Einstein are obvious choices. I'd put Maxwell, who worked out the equations governing electromagnetic fields, on the list, but who's a good fourth? On a whim, I'd put Heisenburg on the giant rock, because his Uncertainty Principle paved the way for modern quantum mechanics.
What, no category for Computer Science? Well, maybe we could add a special category for Mathematicians and Computer Scientists, by that standard Euler, Riemann, Turing, and von Neumann are the four most deserving.
I'd also like to add a quick mention of those scientists who, for whatever reason, never really got the credit they deserved for their discoveries.
Henry Moseley was a contemporary of Niels Bohr and the Curies (aside: how did I forget Madame Curie? I still like Heisenberg on the physics Rushmore, but I could be convinced that Marie Curie should take the honors instead) who did important work on the atomic nucleus that paved the way for atomic energy. He was killed fighting in WWI, else he certainly would have won a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Nearly forgotten today.
Robert Oppenheimer is well-remembered today for his work managing the atomic bomb project, but he too never received the Nobel Prize. Most historians of science today believe that he would have won one for his work on the theory of black holes, had he only lived long enough to see his theories confirmed by actual observations of the stellar objects.
Rosalind Franklin. Regardless of how one feels about her real input into the structure of DNA, or how Crick handled the whole affair, I think it's clear that she deserves place on this list of scientists who drew the short stick when it comes to recognition. Never won a Nobel, most probably because she was dead by the time the awards to Watson and Crick were given. Would she have been included in the Prize had she lived? I'd like to think so, but obviously politics played a cruel hand here.
Alfred Russell Wallace was a contemporary of Darwin, who basically independently worked out the Theory of Evolution at around the same time Darwin did. For whatever reason, Wallace deferred to Darwin's recognition and ended up being known to history primarily as "Darwin's Bulldog", steadfastly defending the Theory of Evolution from its critics in the early days. For my money, though, he deserves equal credit with Darwin for the discovery, and that places him as one of those on my list of "shoulda-beens".
Okay. Time to call my Mom now. Maybe get a bit of shuteye before I have to leave.
12 May 2006
New Beers!
And to think I didn't think I'd have anything to blog about today.
Stopped by Great Spirits after seeing Beth this afternoon, was planning to get some Paulaner or Franziskaner Hefeweizen. Instead, what do I see but three new beers on their display table, Harpoon UFO Hefeweizen, Harpoon Summer Beer, and Harpoon IPA. I've had the UFO Hefeweizen (blech) but I've heard good things about the IPA, and wanted to try the Summer Beer, so I got those two. I'm just a sucker for new beer, I guess.
And then I came home and saw this link over on Pharyngula. Funny for anyone who's ever had to write a lab report.
Stopped by Great Spirits after seeing Beth this afternoon, was planning to get some Paulaner or Franziskaner Hefeweizen. Instead, what do I see but three new beers on their display table, Harpoon UFO Hefeweizen, Harpoon Summer Beer, and Harpoon IPA. I've had the UFO Hefeweizen (blech) but I've heard good things about the IPA, and wanted to try the Summer Beer, so I got those two. I'm just a sucker for new beer, I guess.
And then I came home and saw this link over on Pharyngula. Funny for anyone who's ever had to write a lab report.
11 May 2006
Important News
Upon my urgings, Beth has just started up a new blog detailing her love of all things food-and-wine related. I kept trying to talk about vibrators, lube, and boobies, but no....
Hopefully she'll update her blog more regularly than I update mine. I've added her to the list of links of the left, mainly because I love her more than life itself.
Hopefully she'll update her blog more regularly than I update mine. I've added her to the list of links of the left, mainly because I love her more than life itself.
I'm a moron
So, I finally decided to just upload a damn picture and stick it up for my profile, and did so. Managed to get the whole thing formatted properly and all (just used the GIMP, not as nice as Photoshop, but at least it's free) and even got my new BA Profile pic up, but couldn't manage to make the whole Blogger thing work.
Dammit. So I spent a little time wandering around the help files, trying to figure out why my profile wouldn't show my picture, basically being an idiot, when I did what no self-respecting man should ever do.
I asked my fiancee for help.
Y'see, we often hang out and chat over ICQ during the day when I'm home and she's at work. Gives us both a nice litle pick-me-up to chat, share links, whatever during the day. So I shot over a polite request for help (phrased something like, "Oh please oh please I'll do anything you want just please help me solve my piddlin' little computer problem....") and after giving her my username and password, she said to give her a few minutes.
So I wandered back over to ScienceBlogs for a bit and scanned some more of the Queen of Ass, just minding my own business, when she suddenly says:
"Clear your cache. LOL."
So I opened up the Opera preferences, cleared my cache, and what-do-you-know? the damn thing works.
I'm officially going to have to hang up my geek cred card for good, now.
Dammit. So I spent a little time wandering around the help files, trying to figure out why my profile wouldn't show my picture, basically being an idiot, when I did what no self-respecting man should ever do.
I asked my fiancee for help.
Y'see, we often hang out and chat over ICQ during the day when I'm home and she's at work. Gives us both a nice litle pick-me-up to chat, share links, whatever during the day. So I shot over a polite request for help (phrased something like, "Oh please oh please I'll do anything you want just please help me solve my piddlin' little computer problem....") and after giving her my username and password, she said to give her a few minutes.
So I wandered back over to ScienceBlogs for a bit and scanned some more of the Queen of Ass, just minding my own business, when she suddenly says:
"Clear your cache. LOL."
So I opened up the Opera preferences, cleared my cache, and what-do-you-know? the damn thing works.
I'm officially going to have to hang up my geek cred card for good, now.
10 May 2006
Interesting discussion
I've got a bit of an argument over political philosophy going on over in the "Everything Not Beer" section of the FTH Forums. Read the argument here.
In the last week, I've read Only a Trillion, View From a Height, Robot Dreams, and Puzzles of the Black Widowers, all by Isaac Asimov. I'm currently working on The Mask of Nostradamus by James Randi and the first in the Baroque Cycle, Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson.
I've got some new pictures of myself. I'll put one up on the profile today or tomorrow.
In the last week, I've read Only a Trillion, View From a Height, Robot Dreams, and Puzzles of the Black Widowers, all by Isaac Asimov. I'm currently working on The Mask of Nostradamus by James Randi and the first in the Baroque Cycle, Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson.
I've got some new pictures of myself. I'll put one up on the profile today or tomorrow.
09 May 2006
Wha, wha, whaa?*
*with apologies to Jon Stewart.
I didn't know that Tom Tomorrow would use the word "shit". Fascinating, the coarsening of our culture, isn't it?
I've been chilling out and relaxing the last couple of days, trying to relax before summer classes start and reading a bunch of Asimov. I'll have more in-depth posts in a day or two.
I didn't know that Tom Tomorrow would use the word "shit". Fascinating, the coarsening of our culture, isn't it?
I've been chilling out and relaxing the last couple of days, trying to relax before summer classes start and reading a bunch of Asimov. I'll have more in-depth posts in a day or two.
08 May 2006
When the weekend ends....
I ended up getting an A in that Biology class after all. One down, thirty-ish to go!
We didn't get to go to the graduation on Saturday, due to extenuating circumstances with the friend we were going to ride with. Hopefully I'll get to go down and see the friend who graduated in the next couple of weeks. I did get to call him on his cell before his graduation, and congratulated him about seventy times.
Last night we had planned to invite some of our other friends over for steaks and salad, but it turned out that one of their relatives had been in a car accident, and they weren't even in town for it. So after we cleaned up the apartment and bought a lot of good food (I even drove to Fayetteville to get some Belgian beers to share) we ended up sans company. We cooked the steaks for ourselves, anyway, and I had an Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout while grilling and a Terrapin Wake-and-Bake Coffee Oatmeal Imperial Stout with the meal. Both great beers.
Beth had set up some candles so we could have a somewhat romantic meal by candlelight, and had used some Folgers coffee grounds as filler for two of the candleholders in the place of sand. It gave a nice appearance, but as the candle burned down, it actually set the coffee grounds on fire, creating a fair amount of smoke. Interestingly, it created a nice aroma and melted the grounds into hard "chunks" of material.
Curious, after cleaning up from dinner I took the two candleholders outside, laid some aluminum foil on top of the grill, spread the grounds over the foil, and attempted to light the grounds to see what would happen. At first the grounds wouldn't light, but a bit of lighter fluid gave us a nice blue flame -- lots of smoke, and a nice blue flame. While the coffee grounds smell nice when they merely singe and melt, the actual burning is not pleasant, and I wouldn't recommend it. Oh, well, one idea down the tubes.
I created an AIM account for myself (danielharper2006) in addition to my ICQ account (313312493) so I could chat with my mom when she's on AOL. We had a nice pleasant chat Saturday morning, before my day had really started but after she had already run two loads of laundry, had a shower, and helped take care of the baby. Nothing like talking with my mother to make me feel like a layabout, but I love her anyway.
I'm going to try to get a new photo of myself and post it in my profile in the next few days. I've recently shaved, after having been bearded for several years, and think it might be nice to show my face to the world for a change. I promise I won't be like this guy, though.
We didn't get to go to the graduation on Saturday, due to extenuating circumstances with the friend we were going to ride with. Hopefully I'll get to go down and see the friend who graduated in the next couple of weeks. I did get to call him on his cell before his graduation, and congratulated him about seventy times.
Last night we had planned to invite some of our other friends over for steaks and salad, but it turned out that one of their relatives had been in a car accident, and they weren't even in town for it. So after we cleaned up the apartment and bought a lot of good food (I even drove to Fayetteville to get some Belgian beers to share) we ended up sans company. We cooked the steaks for ourselves, anyway, and I had an Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout while grilling and a Terrapin Wake-and-Bake Coffee Oatmeal Imperial Stout with the meal. Both great beers.
Beth had set up some candles so we could have a somewhat romantic meal by candlelight, and had used some Folgers coffee grounds as filler for two of the candleholders in the place of sand. It gave a nice appearance, but as the candle burned down, it actually set the coffee grounds on fire, creating a fair amount of smoke. Interestingly, it created a nice aroma and melted the grounds into hard "chunks" of material.
Curious, after cleaning up from dinner I took the two candleholders outside, laid some aluminum foil on top of the grill, spread the grounds over the foil, and attempted to light the grounds to see what would happen. At first the grounds wouldn't light, but a bit of lighter fluid gave us a nice blue flame -- lots of smoke, and a nice blue flame. While the coffee grounds smell nice when they merely singe and melt, the actual burning is not pleasant, and I wouldn't recommend it. Oh, well, one idea down the tubes.
I created an AIM account for myself (danielharper2006) in addition to my ICQ account (313312493) so I could chat with my mom when she's on AOL. We had a nice pleasant chat Saturday morning, before my day had really started but after she had already run two loads of laundry, had a shower, and helped take care of the baby. Nothing like talking with my mother to make me feel like a layabout, but I love her anyway.
I'm going to try to get a new photo of myself and post it in my profile in the next few days. I've recently shaved, after having been bearded for several years, and think it might be nice to show my face to the world for a change. I promise I won't be like this guy, though.
06 May 2006
Hear hear!
Very short post today. Saw this on ScienceBlogs, and agree wholeheartedly with it.
What invention of the last 100 years would we be better off without?
Going to a friend's college graduation today, so this is likely all I'm going to do computer-wise. Hopefully more tomorrow.
What invention of the last 100 years would we be better off without?
Going to a friend's college graduation today, so this is likely all I'm going to do computer-wise. Hopefully more tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)