mynameisyang

Check your premises.

I don't know much about rocket science, I think there is no doubt that we can achieve the moon landing, consider there are many incredible things we can do without contradict the laws of physics even with relatively primitive technology. If the action is an end in itself, then all one have to do is just perform exactly that action, with everything physics allowed. But if the action is a mean to something else, then the action itself became a "price" or a burden, one must calculate the ratio of investment vs profit, and conclude is it worth the trouble. May be the action is too expansive and there is a cheaper alternative. If I can get from point A to point B by walk, I will not chose to drive, unless Im moving some heavy cargo or enjoy the ride. Exotic scifi machines such as the flying car can be done with 20 year old technology, but it does not offer any real advantage than street cars consider its pricey construction, extra fuel consumption, regulation problems, and safety risk. Can we return to the moon? yes we can, the US is still a major technological and industrial power in the world, various obstacles can be overcome by intervention, force assemble a team with ability and passion, supply them with a mega budget, put that project on the top priority in the face of anything. But the real problem is: what do we what from it. Return to the moon will not have the same scale and magnitude of impact as the original 1969 mission. Back then, the moon landing was significant, because it represented the new ideas of human progress that challenges the current state of thinking during that time. Simply put, the original moon landing was NEW, it was something never been done but imagined by many generations. At last it also symbolized the "victory" of America over the USSR, who compete under the same goal. Today's world has already transformed by the space age idea, return to the moon will not offer any new idealogical nor technological challenges to our current state of existence. In order to achieve the same revolutionary impact of the original mission, we will need something like establish a moon base, which is something we cannot bet on NASA. Remember the first sentence in Kennedy's Speech at Rice University:"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." What can we say about the return project? Sure it is not easy, but is it Hard?

Nature has no "beauty", beauty is part of human's evaluation of nature. In nature, both mountain and skyscrapers are just collections of matter. "Beauty" is only possible in the human perspective. Art, no matter what subject it is, always reflect the human's perspective, not the natures. "Beauty" is 100% man made, it doest not matter was it the matter processed by our hand, or information processed by our head. Mountain in art is more beautiful than mountain in nature, so as the skyscrapers in art being more beautiful than real skyscrapers.

If you live like that, you will regret when you are 80 years old.

Thanks Grames, I think I solved this problem, its actually kind silly. I did not closely exam those equations on Mathhailno, but it does remind me something about that color bar, the maximum stress was 1.2Mpa something, and in contrast to the 200Mpa yield strength, there should be no actual deformation. The computer did it correctly, so it has to be a problem with software setting. First, I change the material setting to plastic and conduct the same experiment. The result indicate the same deformation occurred with plastic, so I am sure the problem must caused by the software. Then I read the help file, I found that this is a feature of the display setting, the current result is showing an exaggeration. After I switched to the realistic deformation, I run the simulation again with steel and plastic with an applied force 1000N. No visible deformation occur on the steel bar and the plastic bar bend, this makes scene.

The length is 350mm, its in proportion with the rest of dimension given in the picture.

I have to do a load simulation for a steel structure frame, and I am using a software called Autodesk Inventor. The strange problem is that Im having a hard time to understand the analysis result. The simulation bend a 50x50x3mm square shaped "steel bar" with a force of 5N, to me, that does not make any sense, the force involved to break these thing were in the magnitude of kNs. 5N suppose not make any visitable deform in the geometry. The following images includes some details of the result: The steel frame bend 10degree just under 5N of force applied at top To make sure I didn't do anything wrong, I redo the experiment with only earth gravity applied, and this can't be possible. I double checked the mechanical properties for this material, the Yield and Tensile Strength were numbers form catalog, I didn't touch the rest of these values. If you know what they mean, feel free to explain. So, if any of you are professionals in this field, please tell me what I had done wrong or give some link to useful websites. Your help will be deeply appreciated.

Be it open source or not, I think many of these gadgets are not useful at all.

I think this controller will adapt in utility software before games, applications like 3D modeling, air plane, and construction vehicles. It can also help people to control mechanical replacement of there arm or legs. On an extreme case, this deceive can even change the way we do programming and translation. Gaming application is for sure, it will come sooner or later.

http://www.nordicsemi.com/index.cfm?obj=document&act=display&doc=425 This is incredible, although it still sound like science fiction, its actually been developed for sometime. This controller has the potential to solve many problems related to 3D navigation and maneuver on games and many other software. It will sent 360 Kinetic back to stone age.

Given the outcome of episode 1-3. I think he should leave StarWars alone for the rest of his life.

If you are trading a lesser value for a greater value, you are not making a sacrifice, you are doing a business. I think the common definition of that term is an emotional impression base on how much one have to throw in but never considered how much one can get out. If one thinks rationally, it doesn't make sense to generate profit from a sacrifice.

It seems the hair style has a Manga influence.

Then live or death become a matter of choice, you don't have to suffer, just kill yourself. If you are a machine, just pull the plug. If you are a program, just uninstall. If you are a organic molecule, you may do so with a little discomfit. If you are an energy being form black hole, your day has come. What is "suffering"? To the mortals its the percent of things that endanger its survival and wellbeing, such threat only exist base on the fact that life is fragile, it is vulnerable to the random fluctuation of matter and energy, forces of nature run amok in this unprofessional universe. If a being is incapable of death, then the forces that can destroy molecules and circuits cannot alter the state of the immortal. Therefore its not a sign of its own end, so why should it suffer and run away from the non-existent danger. If we can become such "immortal" being, it won't take a billion years for us to colonize the galaxy. If we are incapable of death, there is no reason for not outlaw the physics any further, in physics, you break one rule is equivalent to break them all. Incapability of death already smash tons of natural regulation, and in such reality there is no reason to not smash some more in order to get FTL. Actually immorality in its strict sense is irrational, because it contradicts with reality, nothing is incapable of "death" the entropy can turn any system into atoms. What we are talking about here is actually a way to improve our life, not to become a God.

I want to install my brain into some kind machine and avoid that bio mess all together.

^I became citizen during high school. I am not sure about the international cost but my was something like ~$6500 tuition for full time Engineering student, plus other fees and living cost you will need another $2000~$3000. Its hard to argue about the base rate tuition and material purchase, but one can save some on living, just don't rent ridiculous apartment, don't buy car, don't buy computer if you carry one, and don't buy school themed products for fun. If you are ambition enough, you can take as many core class as you can during each semester, doing so will reduce the time span of your graduation and result in big saving, but not everyone can bear it, especially for Science and Engineering. During my year of application, community college does increase the change for acceptance, but you have to take classes with transferable credits for your future major. You will not need it if you had advanced education or professional working experience, community college was useful for students out of high school or otherwise less familiar with the professional field of study. I think getting an EE degree form U of I was the best decision in my life to this day. I was not only taught the things I need, but also things I didn't know that I need. The fundmental goal of studaying Enginnering is how to go form equation to physical device. The four years streegale was to shape one's mind in order to think in term of essentials. After getting that piece of paper, I am now able to design and build simple circuit and develop it into a complete product that can be mass produced. I can also work on large projects with a team. My friend Tenzing Shaw is currently working as research assistant in my school, we both study Electrical Engineering, you can find him on this forum. He know more about the up to date information of my school at least.

^I focus more on hardware, and know some basics about power. I once took a class on communication but I didn't get it. Too many Fourier transforms I guess.

May be God form heaven should tell him that he is free to do whatever to his life but stop trolling around, on internet and on earth.

Hey, I just graduated from Electrical Engineering last year from U of I. It wasn't difficult to get in the university, provided if you has a good record. But I do recommend an extra year of decent community college to prepare. 1: I never attend any private institution, but I assume the requirement depends on their own policy. 2: My university at Champaign IL has a lot student from China Korea and India, if you has good grade they would want you. As for money, some of them take student lone and work as Teaching Assistance etc. You can read more about my school: http://illinois.edu/ 3: I am a citizen, I had good grade form high school, I can go straight into 4 year university but I choose to attend an community college for preparation. If you are a citizen, your fee will be cheaper than the intergenerational student, and if you attend institution in your own state, your fee will be cheaper than those ex-states. Other than money and admission issue, grade requirement are the same for all potential candidates. I think you may already know all those things, any this response may be ridiculous.

whyNOT explained this fully, I will say that his children's performance is a greater value and his momentary pleasure is a lesser value. He straggle for the greater value, because he is rational and selfish. The momentary pleasure will not last long and it cannot change the fact that one have failed to achieve the great. Even the momentary pleasure is impossible without some children grownup to become the pillars of our modern world. Being selfish is not easy, and "each to his own hierarchy of values".

http://getthescienceright.com/page1.php This is an article against global warming, its the kind I was looking for. It uses data and analysis not finger pointing politic.The Author was a professional in the semiconductor industry and had engaged various other professions, although he was not an expert of atmosphere science, his interpretation on data and calculation were convincing. This is a unique article that proves the point without using any fancy mathematical model, every technical detail was described with straightforward algebra, all one need to understand it is high school physics and plan common sense. If any of you study atmosphere science, welcome to correct mistakes if there is any.

Is the universe to you as something unintelligible? Do you experience fear from things around you that you don't understand? I think there are two things required to make a person feels happy, the confidence of his control over his own destiny, and the achievement due to his intellectual effort. Those two must coexist in any man, the achievement depend on man's power to control his life, and the kind of power to control one's life comes from his achievement. I don't know what you mean by "stimulate", entertainment or hobby? Truth is, there are lots human activity that people mistakenly regard as "enjoying life". For example: drinking in the bar, or having some meaning less party with bunch people hanging around doing nothing, the list goes on... Human beings are not animals, they don't enjoy their life by sensory stimulation alone. Human happiness require an activity of his mind, he will not be satisfied by the physical pleasure of his body, that is a necessary but insufficient condition. Many things that labeled as "have a life" are ways to let people ditch their mind by utilizing material comfort, they run away form effort of thinking or real life problems by temperately reduce their stature to the animal level. I agree with Dynamite's opinion, do something productive, something that you felt passionate. The effort you have done with a career will give you the self-esteem you are looking for, and reinforce your ability manage your life. I am not a native English speaker, so, welcome to catch syntax, grammar, and argument errors.

Its a flash back of primitive culture. In primitive culture, anything are gods except man. Monkey, rat, snake, and even pigs were given a status of deity, and man have to obey their command. Today, "deity" is an outdated concept, "right" is the latest and greatest hot selling gadget. Since whatever nonhuman creatures are being regard as gods, it is logical to donate the latest human intellectual product "right", in order to restore the gods' formal glory.

I have noticed that Ayn Rand's approach to her philosophy was radically different from that of all other modern philosophers. Throughout my life, I always thought the subject "philosophy" was a confusing and incomprehensible hazy cloud. Perhaps that was how most people understood it according to modern wisdom. I made several attempts to guide my life with some kind of philosophical values in order to achieve some undefined, unearthly state of mind. Of course it failed, the philosophical ideal was too "high up in heaven" yet "I am just a hopeless human" bound to the earthly order. If the lofty ideal is forever beyond the comprehension of our mind, then one must justify his passion for such unachievable perfection by hating one's own existence and everyone else’s. This is like saying "I don't belong here." Since the heavenly ideal cannot be achieved in reality and reality is inescapable, one has to distinguish oneself from reality and those who love it by telling oneself "reality is unreal, A is not A." This is the foundation of religious faith. It was invaluable for me to discover Ayn Rand's ideas: philosophy no longer seems to me to be a mysterious, unknowable deity. Her method of studying philosophy was the same as how we study science. Just like natural science, the logic of philosophy is also absolute and concrete; there is no room for ambiguity, relativism notwithstanding. The reason why most people think of philosophy in such mythical terms is because they do not understand it at the conceptual level, just like they lack the mathematical reasoning of science. Like Ayn Rand said in one of her lectures at West Point, everyone thinks and acts according to some philosophical principle, but most of them are not consciously aware that they are applying philosophical principles. This is analogous to natural science. Most people’s lives depend on scientific and technological achievements: computers, cell phones, cars, and all those industrial, house-hold appliances, but how many of them know what’s going on behind the 2mm thick plastic enclosure, or what happens at the other end of the wire? Just as matter is real and absolute, so is the mind. In modern time, people believe that matter is objective and knowable, (this was demonstrated by natural science) but the mind is subjective and unknowable (this was demonstrated by modern philosophy). An important part of Ayn Rand’s idea is that the mind is not subjective and unknowable; it behaves according to rules. We know that the behavior of matter can be summarized with formulas like F=ma, and the behavior of mind also has a set of formulas, and those formulas are philosophy. The misconceptions of philosophy come from two sources; the “street” regards philosophy as some unknowable “higher” state of mind. The academics understand philosophy as a system of thought, but promote relative standards as opposed to the methods of natural science and mathematics. The lesson I learned from college professors was that philosophy is important but no single school is superior to another; the hidden message is that I must treat all philosophy as equal. I personally experienced this trend from all the educational institutions I attended. From high school, to community college, to university in Champaign, the professors of “humanities” classes attempted to give equal evaluation to different kinds of philosophical trends. In one of my art history classes at Champaign, there was detailed and positive coverage of classical western art, but the course devoted an equal amount of time and effort to modern and so-called progressive art. I could write a significant and rational analysis on the beauty and order of classical western art for several pages, but for the so-called “avantgarde” “progressive” art, the only word to emerge from my head was “garbage”, and I could not understand the convoluted explanations in the second half of the book. I dropped the class because I could not understand the course material. During my world history class, the course material and professor had an excellent analysis of what and how historical events occurred, but it regarded the achievements of western civilization with some kind of guilt, and feared to express their profoundly positive influence upon the world. A constant theme of the class was the “nonwestern” viewpoint, which is to judge the meaning of some historical events not based on a “western standard”. They typically applied the western method of analysis of how something happened but not in the evaluation of that particular event; Eurocentralism was the term given to anything that applies western value judgments on historical events, and was frequently used throughout the course. Of course they did not explicitly say anything against western civilization; it was a mysterious dark overtone whenever they spoke about the western influence, the enlightenment, and the industrial revolution, etc. The humanities classes were afraid to evaluate their subject based on absolute standards like true OR false; they liked to not explicitly but implicitly give you an impression that everything is true AND false, everything is a mixture of good and bad factors, everything deserves equal credit, and the nature of everything depends on your point of view. Viewpoint was the central element in all of my humanities classes; the subjects you learned from school varied depending on the variation of textbooks and professors or “better yet” a combination of both. I encountered several occasions where the instructor said he/she does not agree with some arguments from the textbook; thanks to Ayn Rand for telling me why this never happened with my science and math classes. Out of this chaotic mixture of “wonderful” viewpoints, we were excited because it felt like freedom, yet we were so confused, because they contradict each other, and chaos is not freedom. “Check your premises”, is the kind of altitude with which scientists and engineers develop their theories. Theories in anything involving mathematical logic must not contradict each other, and this can only be achieved by not contradicting reality. Anything that is not rooted in reality will eventually breed alternative viewpoints and thus follows contradictions. Ayn Rand’s philosophy answered many questions I had no solution for my whole life; her ideas clearly resemble the irreducible simplicity of scientific principles. Abstract concepts developed based on the concrete, know facts of realty, which is the method we use to study nature, Ayn Rand uses the same method to study man. This has cleared the fog for the rest of my life. Science, witchcraft, and religion, all originated from our desire to understand the universe we live in, but they are fundamentally distinguished by their philosophical understanding of realty. Witchcraft believes reality is knowable because human thought can change the nature of reality to whatever man pleases, while religion believes human thought cannot change the nature of reality because reality is unknowable, that only god can change reality to what ever it pleases. So, in witchcraft, you tell nature to change itself, while in religion you tell someone else to change nature for you. Only in science do you teach yourself how to change nature with your effort, not your wishes. It treats reality as what it is: knowable, intelligible and existing independent of consciousness. In the early days of human history, all three schools of man’s position in nature had the same level of understanding about nature and about man, but look at them today: those two who turned their face away from reality had long abandoned their positions in the field of logical reasoning and must thrive upon “feeling”. It is the fact that they are powerless when facing reality; they can only survive by manipulating man’s mind in order to create an illusion of power. They retreated from the field of consciousness into the field of unconsciousness, because conscious minds began to be dominated by the rational and real. This is a fact, because today, they are no longer motivated by the desire to understand our universe, and history has proven that they are incompetent to deal with such a goal. What motivates them today is the desire to prevent man from understanding the universe, to hide their incompetence to deal with reality at the cost of the destruction of man is mind, “if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning” – here is my 2 cents to the one who said that. The blast of the hydrogen bomb can serve as a good reminder of the power of science, and most people agree with that, while few understand that the power of science came from philosophy. It was philosophy that motivated people to discover nuclear fusion, and it will be philosophy once again to decide to convert this knowledge into electricity or thermal bursts.

You can choose to hide your low self-esteem or to express it.