Obama's History

It turns out I was wrong about the history of our nation. I've come to this conclusion by listening to our president. Mr. Obama says that the reason he's not doing anything about Iran or any of the other conflicts around the world is that he is trying to promote the American ideology of the Democratic Process. This is where I seem to be mistaken on my history. I thought that at the birth of our nation we had some sort of war in which we kicked some British booty and said, "We're staying on this side of the pond and ruling ourselves." Apparently it was more like, "So, guys, we voted, you're out." and the British said, "Fair enough, we're glad you put it to a vote." They then boarded their boats and yelled "Hurrah Democracy!" as they sailed back home. I knew my history books were bound to be a little off, but I had no idea it was this bad.

Read This

That's an order.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/26742/

Looking For Another Job

I've not so recently decided that it is time for me to find another source of income. I would like to start a company that all my friends could work for because my friends have a myriad of talents that would lend themselves well to working for me. That's right, your talents just got personified. Anyway, if any of the 5 people who read this have any ideas for something that we can do in our free time, let me know. Also, if any of you want to start learning web development with an emphasis on Java, that'd help the plans I already have in place.

Just the Beginning

Late, but this needs to be on the site.

"The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous." -V

Who's Bloody With Me!?

Want to Engineer Real Change? Don't Ask a Scientist.

I thought this was an interesting post (copied below).

"We will restore science to its rightful place," President Obama declared in his inaugural address. That certainly sounds like a worthy goal. But frankly, it has me worried. If we want to "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories," as Obama has decreed, we shouldn't look to science. What we need is engineering.

To be fair, Obama's misconception is a common one. Most people who aren't scientists or engineers seem to think that science and engineering are the same. They're not. Science seeks to understand the world as it is; only engineering can change it.

That's not what most high-school teachers or even college professors tell their science students. But the truth is that full scientific understanding isn't always necessary for technological advancement. Take steam engines: They were pumping water out of mines long before a science of thermodynamics was developed to explain how they worked. The engines were what prompted researchers to look into the nature of steam power in the first place.

This may make me a heretic, but I'll take the argument a step farther: Science can actually get in the way of technology. In the 19th century, some scientists were convinced that even the largest steamship couldn't carry enough coal for transatlantic trips. Only when skeptical engineers designed ships that made this supposedly impossible task possible were the naysaying scientists forced to reconsider.

And think about the Wright brothers, who refused to believe that only birds were meant to fly. If Wilbur and Orville had waited for the publication of a sophisticated textbook on aerodynamics, they might never have left their bicycle shop in Dayton for the dunes of Kitty Hawk. Engineering, not science, enabled them to develop propellers that worked in the air the way a ship's propeller spins through water.

Steamships and flying machines may seem like things of the past, but the ingenuity behind them couldn't be more relevant today. Some of our greatest energy challenges require engineering breakthroughs, not scientific discoveries. The principles that explain how a battery works, for example, are old news. But a lightweight and cost-effective battery pack with enough juice to power a car over long distances remains an elusive goal.

The same is true of fuel and solar cells. Scientists established long ago that natural processes involving chemicals and sunlight can produce electricity. We need engineers to make the cells lean enough to compete with coal and oil. Science alone is never enough.

The president and his green team -- particularly Energy Secretary Steven Chu -- appear to understand the urgency of the world's energy problems. I'm not so convinced that they accept that science, for all its beauty, is not the best place to seek practical fixes. Obama should keep his promise to "restore science to its rightful place" -- and put engineering on at least an equal footing.

petroski@duke.edu

Henry Petroski is a professor of civil engineering and history at Duke University. He is at work on a book about science, engineering and global challenges.

Have We Reached A Plateau?

There's something I've noticed recently: no one is updating their computers anymore. I'm not talking about software, but hardware. If anything, people are buying updated versions of the same type of hardware. Think about it, when is the last time you updated your RAM/Video Card/Mobo/Processor? Also, software is taking a step back. Windows 7 cut back much of the graphic/processor intensive processes so that it may run better on netbooks. That's another thing, netbooks are becoming popular. It's 3 year old technology in a slightly smaller form factor that's selling like crazy. Have we reached a plateau for the average consumer? Sure the power users will continue to update their stuff, but what about normal users? Other than complete hardware failure, will you continue to upgrade? Unless they come out with something completely different, will you upgrade any time soon?

----------------
Now playing: Leo Laporte and the TWiTs - TWiT 176: The Fat Middle
via FoxyTunes